Get balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by revealing the exact data returned (balance, customer ID, channels, sender names) and the practical triggers for calling the tool, which gives the agent beyond-annotation expectations of what the tool exposes.

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?

Two sentences, tightly written. The first sentence front-loads the action and result set; the second sentence gives concrete usage scenarios. No filler, no repetition, every clause earns its keep.

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, parameterless, read-only tool, this is complete. It states what is returned, when to use it, and annotations cover safety. Without an output schema, the listed return fields substitute adequately; an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 nothing to document beyond the baseline. The description correctly does not invent parameter details and focuses on output, which is appropriate for a parameterless query tool.

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 names a specific resource (JetAPI account) and a clear verb (Get), then enumerates concrete data items: balance, customer ID, available dispatch routing channels, and sender names. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_account and get_webhook by specifying exactly what is retrieved, so an agent can select it confidently.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: 'when the user asks how much money is left, before a large mailing, or to find a valid sender_name for SMS.' This is clear when-to-use context. It stops short of naming alternatives or saying when NOT to use it, so it lacks the full comparison found in a 5.

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