check_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: wallet resolution via SIWX (signed automatically), and the admin key requirement for non-linked wallets. However, it does not mention rate limits, side effects, or whether it is purely read-only (though implied).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently conveys the core function and an important behavioral nuance.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main concepts: purpose, wallet resolution, and access control. However, it omits the return format (e.g., what 'available and held funds' looks like), which would improve completeness.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a basic description. The tool description adds significant context: wallet resolution mechanism and admin key requirement, which go beyond the schema. This extra information helps understand parameter implications.

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 explicitly states the action ('Check'), the resource ('organization balance for the agent's allowance wallet'), and the scope ('available and held funds'), making the purpose specific and clear. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'allowance_status' by focusing on balance checking.

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. It mentions a condition (admin key for other wallets) but does not explicitly state use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. No sibling differentiation is made.

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