banque_soldes

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it explains the 'etat' field values (observe, ancien, inconnu), instructs not to misinterpret 'inconnu' as zero or failure, and mentions the quota and caching behavior. This gives the agent a clear understanding of what to expect and how to handle edge cases.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality, the response's reliability states, and the quota constraint. No unnecessary verbosity; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description provides essential context about the response, including the 'etat' and 'age_lisible' fields, and the quota behavior. However, it does not detail the full response structure (e.g., balance amount, currency) or specify behavior for multiple accounts, which could be considered a minor gap in completeness.

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 description adds significant context beyond the schema: it explains the operational impact of 'rafraichir' (consumes quota, forces network call) and clarifies the default behavior. It also relates the 'etat' field to the parameters, enhancing the schema's basic definitions.

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 that the tool returns the available balance of each account, with detailed explanation of the 'etat' field. It is distinct from the sibling tools (health, accounts, schedules, transactions, projections) as it specifically targets balances.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to set 'rafraichir' to true versus false, based on the quota and need for real-time data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool over the sibling tools, though the purpose inherently implies it for balance queries.

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