get_finances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the meaningful fact that the returned balance is what card payments draw on and drives pay_order top-up decisions, but it does not explicitly state read-only status, auth requirements, or failure behavior. For a zero-parameter balance query, this is reasonable but not fully complete.

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?

Three short sentences each earn their place: the first states the data returned, the second explains its operational meaning for pay_order, and the third routes to get_points for detail. There is no filler or redundancy.

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-argument read operation with an output schema, the description covers what is returned, why it matters in the payment flow, and how to get more detail via get_points. Nothing required to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-semantics burden for the description to carry. Per the zero-parameter baseline, this dimension should score 4; no additional parameter documentation is needed.

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 identifies the resource as the Ozon Card balance and total points, and differentiates it from get_points by pointing to that sibling for point-type breakdown. However, it lacks an explicit action verb and relies on the tool name's 'get' to convey the operation.

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 explicitly routes point-type breakdowns to get_points() and explains that the balance determines whether pay_order() needs a top-up. This gives an agent clear context for when this tool matters and which sibling covers the alternative case.

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