查询账户余额

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

With no annotations provided, the description explicitly discloses a key behavioral trait: '不扣积分' (does not deduct points), indicating a read-only operation. It also implies the tool is safe to call for balance verification. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but the main side-effect concern is addressed.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating what the tool does, when to use it, and a key side-effect note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no 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 simple, zero-parameter tool, the description provides the purpose, a usage trigger, and return values (balance, subscription status, monthly usage). It doesn't cover return formatting, but the mentioned fields effectively communicate what the agent will receive, and no output schema exists to shift that burden.

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 schema coverage is 100% (no properties to describe). The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 the tool queries the ByeRisk account's points balance, subscription status, and monthly usage. It uses a specific verb (查询) and resource (账户), and is clearly differentiated from sibling content-checking tools.

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?

It gives a specific trigger scenario (when detection reports 402 insufficient points) to use this tool to confirm balance. It doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives, but the sibling tools serve different purposes, so this context is sufficient for basic use cases.

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