Consultar saldo da conta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds valuable detail about which balances are returned (available, blocked with release timing, total) and that limits/rates are included. This goes beyond annotations to inform the agent of output contents and meaning.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the main action. However, it packs many details (three balance types, two release explanations, limits, rates) which could be slightly overwhelming. Still, it is concise overall and contains no 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 there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return information (available, blocked with release specifics, total, limits, rates). It also confirms read-only and no parameters, leaving no ambiguity for a parameterless tool.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description simply confirms 'sem parâmetros'. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4; the description does not add extra semantic detail beyond stating there are none.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool checks balances of the authenticated ZuckPay account, listing specific components (available, blocked, total) and additional info (limits, rates). The verb 'consulta' and resource 'saldos' are clear. No sibling tool duplicates this purpose.

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?

Description notes the tool is read-only and has no parameters, implying it is used solely for balance inquiry. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the lack of similar balance tools makes the usage context clear. A higher score would require explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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