ozon_ad_balance

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

The description discloses an important limitation: there is 'no official method' for this balance. This is useful behavioral context beyond the tool name, but with no annotations, the description still leaves uncertainty about reliability, return format, and failure behavior.

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 very short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The parenthetical Russian translation is slightly redundant but not harmful; overall it remains economical.

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-parameter tool, invocation is simple, but the absence of an output schema and annotations places more burden on the description to explain what the agent should expect. The description names the result concept but not its shape, units, or reliability, leaving a moderate gap.

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, so there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are not a concern here.

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 ad account balance and distinguishes it from the related spend-focused sibling ozon_ad_statistics_expenses. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', but 'Ad account balance' plus the tool name makes the intended read operation reasonably clear.

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 directs the agent to ozon_ad_statistics_expenses for spend data, which is a clear alternative for a related but distinct need. It does not fully spell out when to prefer this tool over other ad-related tools, but the balance-vs-spend distinction provides usable context.

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