get_balance

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries full responsibility. It indicates a read-only operation ('Return') and specifies that it operates on the current API key, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as authentication requirements or rate limit implications.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the operation and its target. Every word adds value, with no 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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and scope. It specifies what the response contains (quota state, totals, scopes) and requires no additional context for a simple balance lookup.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds context that the balance is tied to the current API key, which is useful for the agent to understand the implicit context. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: the current API key's quota state, totals, and scopes. None of the sibling tools deal with balance or quota, so it is well-differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. There are no sibling tools for balance, but the description does not explicitly state when it should be invoked (e.g., before making API calls).

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