Get account balance

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the request is signed with this server's own key (BRICK_BLUE_KEY_FILE, auto-created on first use, backed up because the key IS the account), and it confirms a single JSON object return. Auth and persistence behavior are disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then when to use it, then the auth/return-format caveats. Every sentence carries load; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields, and it covers the key creation/backup requirement an agent would otherwise not know. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise to add, and the description correctly spends its words on return shape and auth instead.

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 ('Returns this server's own account on the hub') and enumerates exactly what comes back: balance per network, held escrow, and the funding account id. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like get_agent or get_hub_stats by scoping to this server's own account.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance tied to named siblings: before call_agent or publish_task to know spendable funds, and after submit_result to see payment. No alternative tool is left for the agent to infer.

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