get_account_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds '실시간' (real-time) and the GET endpoint, which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, caching, or permission requirements. It neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the annotation.

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 that conveys the core purpose and endpoint without unnecessary words. Every phrase earns its place, and it avoids verbosity.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly states what the tool does, and the schema and annotations fill in the rest. However, it doesn't explain return format or when to use it, which slightly lowers completeness, but the output schema covers return expectations.

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 100%, with each parameter (ad_account_id, business_token) having a clear description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 given high schema coverage.

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 returns the real-time balance of an ad account, and includes the HTTP endpoint. It specifies the resource (광고계정) and operation (잔액 조회), distinguishing it from sibling tools like performance or campaign retrieval. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' and doesn't differentiate from all possible siblings, though the balance concept is unique.

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 doesn't mention whether it's for ad account-level queries, session requirements, or when a user might need to override tokens. Sibling tools like get_account or get_account_performance exist, but no selection criteria are given.

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