novada_plan_balance_all

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds key behaviors: parallel execution, partial failure isolation, raw server response fields (balance_mb, remaining_mb, plan_mb), and auth fallback. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Highly structured with sections, very concise. Every sentence adds value. No filler.

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?

Given the schema covers parameters fully, annotations cover safety, and description explains parallel execution, partial failures, and return structure, the description is complete for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 coverage 100% with enum on products. Description adds meaning: omitting queries all 6, 'optional subset', and documents typical response fields. Goes beyond schema by explaining behavior of optional parameter.

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 it provides per-product balance across all 6 Novada flow products in parallel, with a specific verb ('balance') and resource ('products'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'novada_wallet_balance' for master wallet currency balance.

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?

Explicit 'Best for' (quota check, pre-flight) and 'Not for' (master wallet balance) sections, with direct sibling reference. Also notes partial failures isolation, guiding appropriate use.

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