newdb_get_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does convey the read-only nature ('balance') and scope ('on NewDB API token'). However, it omits useful behavioral details such as whether the check consumes quota, what 'balance' means (daily/monthly reset), or any rate-limit implications, which would be valuable for a billing-related endpoint.

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, well-crafted sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word adds value, and the key information ('remaining request balance', 'NewDB API token') is front-loaded.

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 (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects of what the tool does. While it could specify the response format or the meaning of 'balance', the low complexity means the description is nearly sufficient on its own for an agent to use 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, making it self-contained. The description adds the necessary context that the tool operates on the authenticated API token, effectively compensating for the lack of parameters. A score of 4 aligns with the baseline for zero-param tools.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('remaining request balance on NewDB API token'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The focus on token quota clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like newdb_check_fssp or newdb_complex_check_person, which all involve business data lookups.

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?

Clearly conveys that this tool addresses account quota inquiries, and the contrast with sibling 'check_*' tools makes the usage context evident. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., 'use for balance only, not for data lookups'), though the naming convention makes this largely unnecessary.

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