get_bonus_balance

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

Without annotations, the description adds behavioral context: the balance is a separate promo balance that depletes first as a taxed discount line. This goes beyond a simple 'get balance' and informs the agent about the balance's nature and priority.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding behavioral detail. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value and how it integrates with get_credit_balance. It does not cover error states or availability, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the return value (balance in cents EUR) and the balance's role, which is helpful 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 the tool returns the account's promo balance in cents EUR, and distinguishes it as a separate non-WHMCS balance. It also differentiates from sibling tool get_credit_balance by explaining how this balance depletes first.

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 explicitly advises pairing with get_credit_balance for a complete spending picture, providing usage context. However, it does not give strict when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tools for other scenarios.

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