getBusinessAccountStarBalance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the authorization requirement (can_view_gifts_and_stars), the read-only nature implied by 'Returns', and the success return type ('StarAmount object'). It stops short of covering failure behavior (invalid connection ID, missing permission), but for a simple read operation the disclosure is strong.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste: the first states the core function, the second adds the two highest-value facts (permission requirement and return type). Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, auth precondition, and return type — nearly everything needed to call it safely. The only gaps are failure-mode behavior and the structure of the returned StarAmount object, which are minor for a simple balance query.

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 coverage is 100% — the single business_connection_id parameter is already fully documented as 'Unique identifier of the business connection'. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies; the 'managed business account' phrasing only loosely reinforces the parameter's purpose.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns'), resource ('Telegram Star balance'), and scope ('managed business account'), which distinguishes it from the sibling getMyStarBalance (bot's own balance) and getStarTransactions (transaction history). The wording is unambiguous and an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context via the explicit precondition 'Requires the can_view_gifts_and_stars business bot right' and the 'managed business account' scope, which implies it is for business accounts rather than the bot itself. However, it never names the closest alternatives (getMyStarBalance, getStarTransactions) or states when not to use this tool, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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