get_account_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses parameter behavior (date format) but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. The behavioral scope is partially inferred but not explicit.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word contributes meaning. No redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers parameter usage adequately. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. However, given the rich set of sibling tools, it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over similar ones (e.g., lease_ledger_report, sum_transactions). Some aspects like pagination or performance are omitted.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description adds clear semantics: omitting account returns overall balance, and as_of must be YYYY-MM-DD and limits transactions. This compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'running balance for an account, or the whole ledger'. It distinguishes two use cases (with or without account) and uses specific terminology ('running balance', 'overall outstanding balance').

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 explicit instructions for parameter usage: omit account for overall balance, and use as_of for date limiting. However, it does not guide when to use this tool versus siblings like get_balance_sheet or sum_transactions, missing exclusions or alternatives.

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