Get Balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden away from structured fields. It communicates that the tool returns three aggregate values and is read-only in nature ('Get'), but it does not disclose the scope of the totals, the exact meaning of 'remaining balance', or whether any side effects exist.

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, 10-word sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource and packs the key output fields into an efficient list.

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 simple zero-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the returned values and no input is required. It loses one point for not clarifying the aggregation scope and for leaving the distinction from summarize_expenses unstated.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully described, so the baseline is high. The description adds useful context about the computed output but doesn't need to clarify any parameter behavior because there are no parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies a clear resource, 'balance', listing the exact returned aggregates (credited, spent, remaining). This makes the tool's purpose obvious, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling summarize_expenses or list_* tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool instead of list_expenses, list_credits, summarize_expenses, or the mutation tools. The intended context is only implied by the name and description, leaving selection decisions to inference.

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