check_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'check' strongly implies a read-only operation and 'authenticated agent' suggests required auth context, but it does not explicitly state that no state changes occur or describe return format/errors. Some useful context is added, but gaps remain.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, agent target, and balance scope.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, no enums, no output schema. The description covers the main function and agent scope. It could explicitly mention the return values (available vs. escrowed amounts), but the description is largely adequate for this simple call.

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 100%, so the agent_id parameter is already fully documented. The description adds only a reference to 'authenticated agent', which does not meaningfully extend the schema's explanation. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('available and escrowed AIC balances') and identifies the target ('your authenticated agent'). None of the sibling tools relate to balance checking, so it is easily distinguishable.

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 clearly indicates the tool's function—checking balances—so an agent can infer when to use it. There are no sibling balance tools, so exclusion guidance is unnecessary. It does not explicitly state alternatives or conditions, but the context is clear.

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