bank_get_balances

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds some context by explaining that the tool uses the Account Information product due to the lack of a separate balance API. This gives insight into the implementation but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or other relevant traits.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every part earns its place, even though it is short.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what return data to expect (e.g., balance amounts, account identifiers, or formatting). It also lacks any mention of pagination despite page/pageSize parameters. For a simple read tool this is incomplete; the why clause about the Account Information product does not fill the gap.

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, but it provides no information about the page and pageSize parameters. The schema only gives type and numeric constraints, which do not add semantic meaning. The description says nothing about pagination or how these parameters affect results.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('account information'), but it is vague about 'account information'—the tool name implies balances, yet the description does not mention balances explicitly. It also does not distinguish this from the sibling tool bank_list_accounts, which likely also reads account information.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains that it uses the same Account Information product because no separate balance API exists, which is contextual background rather than usage direction. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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