alterlab_check_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it is read-only (returns values), mentions the specific returns (balance, deposited, spent), and clarifies authentication (API key). It does not cover rate limits or caching, but for a simple query, this is adequate.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and immediately explains the inputs and outputs. Every sentence is informative and necessary.

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 no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned (balance, deposited, spent). It does not specify data types or units, but for a simple balance check, the information is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining that no parameters are required and that identification is via API key, which is helpful context beyond the empty 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 clearly states it checks account balance and credit usage, specifying the returns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are action-oriented (crawl, batch, etc.), making it obvious that this is a read-only status tool.

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 explains that no parameters are needed and that identification uses the API key. It implies the tool is for balance inquiries, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives. However, given the simplicity and distinct purpose, this is sufficient.

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