get_balance

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does mention the return types ('closing booked balance' and 'expected balance'), which is helpful, but it does not address whether the tool is read-only, if it requires authentication (implicit via connectionId), or any side effects.

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 two sentences, no redundant words, and directly addresses the tool's purpose and output. Every sentence adds value.

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 balance retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the output type and the optionality of accountId. However, it could clarify terms like 'closing booked balance' and 'expected balance' for better clarity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only accountId has a description). The description for accountId adds useful context: 'If omitted, returns balances for all accounts.' However, connectionId lacks a description in both schema and tool description, leaving its meaning unclear.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current account balance(s)', and specifies that it returns 'closing booked balance and expected balance'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_accounts or list_transactions, which deal with other account data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer get_balance over list_accounts or spending_summary, or any exclusions.

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