check_balance

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Check' and the listed statuses (workspace tier, API status, PAYG status) imply a read-only operation, and 'authenticated' signals the authentication requirement. However, it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or describe response behavior beyond the listed statuses.

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, well-structured sentence with no fluff. The primary verb and purpose are front-loaded, and the three status items are clearly enumerated.

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?

For a zero-parameter status-check tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the exact statuses being checked and implies the authentication context. It lacks an explicit note on return format or differentiation from the sibling check_workspace_status, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool checks rather than parameter details.

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 specifies the verb 'Check' and the resource: authenticated workspace tier, Free/Paid API status, and verified PAYG status. It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool check_workspace_status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_workspace_status. The implied usage is to check billing/status information, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routes are described.

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