get_account_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the basic action and does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, error behavior, or what the response looks like. Similar to the MID example, this is a clear gap for a simple getter.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and noun, and every word earns its place. Extremely efficient.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema), so the description is minimally sufficient for understanding the basic action. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, or any behavioral nuances. For a straightforward getter, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% (accountId is described as 'Account ID'). The description adds minimal extra meaning ('specific account' merely echoes the parameter). Since the schema is well-covered, the 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 'Get current balance for a specific account' uses a clear verb and resource, and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_accounts (which lists accounts, not balances) or get_transactions. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when the current balance of a known account is needed, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives. The context is clear from the purpose, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided, so it stays at the 'implied usage' level.

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