get_ledger_balance

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden itself. 'Get' correctly implies a read-only operationchen, and 'real-time' adds useful context about data freshness. However, it does not disclose failure modes, whether cached results are possible despite the claim, or what happens when both name and ID are provided.

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 a single, tightly written sentence with no redundancy. The core action and resource appear first, and the lookup method is stated efficiently. It earns its place with no wasted words.

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 low-complexity lookup tool with three parameters and no nested objects, the description plus schema is mostly complete. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the description saying the tool returns a 'balance.' It could note the return shape or clarify the relationship among ledger, party, and member, but these are minor gaps.

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 schema already documents ledger_id and ledger_name, and the description's 'by name or ID' reinforces those mappings. The required company_id is not explained, but its purpose is reasonably inferable from the name. The description adds little beyond the schema, and schema coverage is moderate at 67%.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get real-time balance' and identifies the target as a ledger/party/member. It also indicates lookup by name or ID, distinguishing it from statement-related tools like get_ledger_statement by focusing on 'balance' rather than transaction history. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_ledger_statement, search_ledgers, or other balance-related tools. The usage context is only implied (use when you need a current balance), with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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