get_total_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it warns that the institution may be unavailable and clarifies that cards are reported separately, which is beyond what the annotations express.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core result semantics are front-loaded, and the availability caveat earns its place as a distinct behavioral warning.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the main output organization and a relevant failure condition. However, it omits any account_ids semantics and provides no guidance on how this tool relates to sibling balance tools, leaving a meaningful gap in the agent's ability to decide when to call it.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining the single parameter, account_ids. The parameter is optional and self-explanatory by name, but the description never states whether it filters the balances, restricts aggregation, or changes the output grouping. The schema provides type and default but not semantic intent.

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 states that the tool returns bank balances grouped by currency and type, with credit cards separated. This is a specific resource and output organization, and it helps distinguish the tool from siblings like get_account_balance or get_net_worth, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_account_balance or get_credit_card_summary. The word 'total' and the grouping semantics imply an aggregate view, but no when-to-use, exclusions, or alternative routing are stated.

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