get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation and unit but does not mention error behavior, permission requirements, or whether the tool is purely read-only. The lack of any caveats or context makes it under-transparent for a tool with zero annotations.

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, perfectly front-loaded, and every word adds value (operation, resource, unit). There is no fluff or 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?

For a tool with one string parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It covers the core purpose and return unit, but leaves out likely failure conditions, expected input format, and any behavioral caveats. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter meaning. It only says 'an account' without clarifying how account_name is formatted, validated, or what values are accepted. This adds little beyond the schema's own parameter name.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the balance of an account' and adds the unit of measure 'in cents'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like record_transaction or reconcile, as it is a read-only balance query.

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 clearly implies a read-only balance retrieval but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. For a simple getter this is minimally acceptable, but it does not address edge cases or distinguish from sibling operations like reconcile.

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