Account balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by specifying 'spendable' credit and 'hourly cap', but doesn't explicitly confirm the call is side-effect-free, discuss error scenarios, or note whether it hits an external service. For a no-parameter getter this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the verb and both return values with zero wasted words. Every word 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential ground: what is returned and for whom. The only minor omission is specifics about the return format/units of the balance, but given the tool's simplicity and the clear sibling context, nothing critical is missing.

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 0 parameters, baseline is 4. The description does clarify that the balance is for 'the API account' (not a passed-in user), which adds meaningful semantic context about whose balance this is. The schema is empty so there is nothing else to document.

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 ('Return') and names the exact resource ('API account's spendable credit balance and hourly cap'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (cut_youtube_video, get_cut_status), which are entirely different domains.

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 implies its usage through context—it's the only read-only account-balance tool among the siblings. However, it never explicitly explains when to choose this over alternatives or mentions prerequisites like API key configuration. The differentiation from siblings is not explicit but is strongly implied.

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