Account balance

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it defines clearedBalance vs effectiveBalance, notes total* fields include spaces/savings goals, states amounts are minor units, and mentions a formatted summary is returned.

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?

Every clause carries distinct information (field definitions, scope of totals, units, output format) and the core purpose is front-loaded. Dense but no wasted sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to explain the meaning of the key returned balance fields and their units, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. The only gap is the absence of usage routing versus check_funds.

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%, so the schema already documents the single accountUid parameter including its default-resolution behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('Gets an account's balance') and clarifies the field semantics. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling check_funds, which an agent could plausibly confuse for the same capability.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no mention of alternatives such as check_funds. Usage is only implied by the tool name and by the field explanations.

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