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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements beyond the optional auth_token parameter, rate limits, or any limitations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The purpose is front-loaded with 'Get account balance' and the return information follows immediately. There is no wasted wording, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core return values (balance and total deposits). However, it omits any mention of error conditions, currency, or authentication prerequisites beyond the implied 'authenticated user'. Given the low complexity, the description is minimally adequate but not fully 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?

The schema describes the auth_token parameter with 'Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents the parameter fully. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'account balance', and specifies that it returns the current account balance and total deposits for the authenticated user. This is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_agent_wallet or get_card, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description implies usage: if you need the account balance, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied rather than stated, so it meets the baseline for implied guidance but lacks explicit routing.

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