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 of behavioral disclosure. It details the returned fields (balance, tier, features, etc.) and their semantics (e.g., 'FIFO consumed', 'or null for free-tier keys'), which is sufficient for a read-only query. However, it does not mention side effects or edge cases like rate limits or caching, which would be desirable.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence and bulleted details for fields. It is informative but slightly longer than necessary; the field list could be more concise. Overall, it's clear and 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 that the tool has zero parameters and an output schema likely defines the structure, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what is returned and when to use it. No gaps are apparent for this use case.

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 input schema has no parameters, and the description provides rich semantics about what each field in the output means. Since schema coverage is 100% (0 params), the description adds value by explaining the return values beyond schema constraints.

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 starts with a clear verb 'Return' and specifies the resource 'SentiSift balance, tier, usage counters, and subscription state'. It also lists sibling tools like 'analyze_comments' and 'get_health', and this tool's purpose is distinct from them, as it focuses on account details.

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 explicitly states when to call this tool: 'when the user asks about their balance, upcoming renewals, or whether a feature is available on their tier'. This provides clear context and implies when not to use it (e.g., for other queries), though no alternative tools are named for those cases.

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