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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the value is computed as the sum of all known transactions and may diverge from the real bank balance if older transactions were never imported. It omits auth/rate-limit details.

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?

Roughly three short sentences that are front-loaded with the core meaning and the important accuracy caveat. The trailing endpoint reference is mildly redundant but compact; little waste overall.

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?

A simple read-only tool with 2 fully documented params, no output schema and annotations covering safety. The description captures the key behavioral caveat, so an agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description echoes the date semantics (sum up to and including the given date) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (get), resource (check account balance) and scope (at a given date, sum of all known transactions). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like sevdesk_list_check_accounts or sevdesk_list_transactions without opening the schema.

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 purpose implies when to use it (querying a single account's historical balance at a date), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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