get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation (balances/turnovers) but does not explicitly state read-only status, mention safety, performance implications, or authentication needs. The description lacks depth about what happens with large data or edge cases.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, each providing essential information. It front-loads the primary action ('получить остатки и/или обороты') and includes key capabilities 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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, pagination, error scenarios, or how dimensions interact with account codes. Without an output schema, the description should fill that gap but does not.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds little beyond restating that filtering by 'счёт, период, организация и субконто' is supported. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not provide additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 balances and/or turnovers of an accounting register, with filtering support. It distinguishes the tool as working with any chart of accounts, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_register_totals or get_register_records, which may overlap in functionality.

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 versus alternatives like get_register_totals, check_references, or get_register_dimensions. It lacks explicit contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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