warungcyber_check_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. It usefully discloses two traits beyond the schema: 'Read-only operation' (safe, non-mutating) and 'via an external gateway API call' (implies a remote network dependency and possible latency/failure). It does not describe rate limits, auth failure behavior, or caching, leaving real gaps.

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 with no filler; the returned fields and read-only nature are stated compactly while every clause adds information.

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 correctly enumerates what comes back (balance, cumulative token consumption, account status), which is the key missing structured info. It is slightly thin on error/edge behavior for an external gateway call, but otherwise complete for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema already documents the sk-wc- prefix format). The description adds context that this is a WarungCyber API key, but nothing about format or handling beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (remaining account balance), and enumerates the returned data: balance in USD/IDR, cumulative token consumption, and active account status. That scope is plainly distinct from list_models, get_setup_guide, and chat_completion, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 versus the siblings, no stated prerequisites beyond the apiKey parameter, and no mention of failure conditions (e.g. invalid or expired key). Use is only implied by the verb 'Retrieve'.

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