balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one real trait: tier stacks a probability boost using the GTCEu default formula, unverified for GTO. That is genuine context, but it omits whether the call is purely computational/read-only, what output shape to expect, and any cost or side-effect information.

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 entry is a single dense line that front-loads the (nominal) purpose and then the two most important parameter conventions. There is little waste, though the extreme terseness edges toward cryptic rather than optimally structured.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the 'format' parameter undocumented and never describes the result of the balance computation. It also fails to position the tool against balance_v, so an agent lacks what it needs to call and interpret it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: it spells out the accepted shapes of 'runs' ([{recipe_id, runs}] or [{"<id>": runs}]) and explains that 'tier' accepts a number or EV/IV-style values. However, the 'format' parameter (default "text") is never addressed, so the documentation remains incomplete for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 opens with '物料平衡' (material balance), which essentially restates the tool name 'balance' rather than stating a specific verb+resource action. It never says it computes/calculates anything, and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling balance_v. The agent must infer purpose from the input-format syntax that follows.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative balance_v (or plan/trace, which cover related flows). The description supplies parameter syntax only, leaving tool selection entirely to inference.

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