get_account_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it implies a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what format the balance information takes. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It could be slightly improved by front-loading more critical information about behavioral aspects, but it's appropriately sized for a simple query tool.

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 financial balance query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'balance information' includes (cash, margin, unrealized P/L?), whether it's real-time, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The agent would be operating with significant uncertainty about the tool's behavior and output.

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 schema has 100% description coverage with a well-documented enum parameter, so the description doesn't need to compensate. The description mentions 'stock and/or futures accounts' which aligns with the enum values but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('account balance information'), and specifies the account types covered ('stock and/or futures accounts'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account_info' which might provide overlapping or related information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_account_info' or 'get_positions'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or any context that would help an agent choose between this and other account-related tools in the server.

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