hcm_get_plan_balance

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

The description does not contradict the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds a small amount of behavioral context by naming the exact Fusion endpoint and indicating single-resource retrieval. However, it does not mention error behavior, authorization needs, or response characteristics. Since the annotation already covers the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, the lookup key, and the endpoint efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is nearly sufficient to invoke the tool. However, with no output schema and no clarification of how this relates to other balance-oriented siblings, an agent may lack enough context to fully interpret the result or choose correctly among nearby tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats that retrieval is 'by id', adding no meaningful semantics for balanceId. It does not clarify what a plan balance is, where the ID comes from, or any expected format. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'single plan balance', and the lookup mechanism 'by id'. The parenthetical 'Fusion planBalances/{id}' helps identify the underlying endpoint. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from related balance tools like hcm_get_absence_type_balance, but the resource is reasonably unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as hcm_absence_balance or hcm_get_absence_type_balance. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives described, so an agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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