get_treasury

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a critical caveat: the `balance` field is a static opening figure, not a live transaction-derived balance. It also discloses overlap with official treasury tools and a planned consolidation, though it does not cover authentication, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and followed immediately by the important balance warning. The overlap/consolidation note is useful but slightly less essential. Overall it is efficient, with every sentence contributing context.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key purpose, a critical field-level caveat, and overlap context. It is nearly complete, though it stops short of describing the broader return shape or any failure behavior.

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?

There is one required parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `treasuryId` as the account ID. The description adds only the phrase 'by ID' and does not provide additional syntax, format, or lookup constraints beyond the schema. This meets the baseline 3 for a fully documented single parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Get a specific treasury account by ID' — and scopes it to the Holded API v2. It also identifies overlapping sibling tools, which helps an agent distinguish this retrieval operation from related treasury and bank-account operations.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: retrieve a treasury account by its ID. It also warns against using the `balance` field for reconciliation or as a live cash position. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose `get_treasury` versus `get_bank_account` or `list_treasuries`; it only notes that overlap exists and consolidation is planned.

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