get_account_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cash amounts may differ from deposits and that amount fields are strings for precision. It clearly explains the returned components. However, it does not mention error conditions, caching, or authentication requirements.

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 concise: two front-loaded sentences covering purpose and usage, followed by a necessary nuance paragraph. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the zero-parameter complexity and existence of an output schema, the description covers the key points: what is returned and a notable cash precision detail. It could briefly mention error scenarios or context assumptions, but it is largely complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter description needed. The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns, which indirectly informs the agent that no input is required.

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 it retrieves an account balance summary ('계좌 잔고 요약을 조회합니다'), listing specific components (stock valuation summary, cash amounts) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_holdings or get_stock_price.

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 description provides explicit example queries ('내 계좌 잔고', '총 자산', '예수금/현금 얼마 있어') indicating when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the examples cover typical use cases well.

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