Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the balance is scoped to the current user or their team and that it returns synchronously, which is useful. It doesn't mention authentication or failure behavior, but for a simple no-parameter read query that's a minor gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences: first states what is returned, second states when to invoke, third states timing. No filler; all content is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only query with a clear return concept, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. Not tied to any output schema, so explaining return format could add a little value, but the core is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds the semantic nuance of a team-scoped balance, which is not expressible through the schema and helps the agent interpret the result.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: query the current user's (or team's) compute point balance. In a sibling set dominated by generation and task tools, no other tool competes for this exact purpose, so it is clearly distinguishable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the use cases (user asks remaining points/quota, or wants to confirm balance before generating), which is more than most siblings provide. This leaves little ambiguity about when to call it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.