get_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, and the listed fields indicate what information is returned. However, it does not explicitly state that the call is non-destructive, requires no arguments, or that it does not consume free operations.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and lists all relevant result fields. Every word earns its place with no redundant framing.

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 no-parameter getter with no output schema, the description names all the returned data dimensions it can. It does not describe units or response format, but those are minor gaps for a simple balance query, and the listed fields provide enough context for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description accurately implies no inputs are needed by describing what the configured key's balance is, so no parameter documentation gap exists.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('balance'), and lists the concrete fields returned: credit, free operations remaining, monthly cap, and spend. This clearly separates it from get_usage and get_access in meaning.

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 this is the tool to call when checking account/quota balance, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over get_usage or get_access, nor does it mention any alternative tools. Usage context is adequate but not deeply instructive.

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