batch_card_balances

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. While 'Check' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm this, nor does it describe error handling (e.g., behavior when card_ids are invalid), rate limits, or return format.

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 extremely concise at only 8 words, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant or filler text. However, it borders on underspecification given the lack of supporting annotations or output schema.

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 batch operation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits critical operational details such as maximum batch size, pagination behavior, error handling for partial failures, and the structure of returned balance data.

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 100% schema description coverage ('Array of card IDs'), the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional semantic context, examples, or format constraints beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 ('Check') and resource ('balances' for 'cards') and implies batch processing ('multiple cards in one call'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_card_balance' despite the clear functional overlap.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies efficiency benefits for batch operations, suggesting when to use this tool (for multiple cards). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer 'get_card_balance' instead, or any limitations on batch size.

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