get_account_balance

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is non-consuming ('does not consume account balance') and identifies the result as the current balance in PLN. For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is sufficient behavioral transparency despite not covering details like authentication or failure modes.

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 entire description is one compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, the unit of measurement, and the key behavioral characteristic without wasting words.

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 is simple (zero parameters) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and that invoking it has no balance cost. No important usage context appears to be missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the parameter semantics baseline is 4. The description correctly communicates that no inputs are needed and adds meaningful context by specifying the balance currency. There is no parameter documentation gap for the schema to compensate for.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a precise, identifiable resource: the current rejestr.io API account balance in PLN. It cleanly differentiates itself from all sibling tools, which focus on organizations, persons, and financial documents rather than account state.

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 implicitly signals when to use this tool: whenever the agent needs to know the account balance. It also adds usage-relevant context by noting the call is free and does not consume the balance, which helps an agent decide to use it as a safe, non-destructive check before other API operations.

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