get_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal a meaningful behavioral trait – that results may be cached/stale by default and fresh=true forces a more up-to-date read – but says nothing about permissions, cost/latency of a fresh read, 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the one conditional that changes invocation behavior. No filler.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is thin. It omits what 'current' vs 'available' balance means in the response, the role of provider_id, and any freshness/latency caveat beyond the one example.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the intent of fresh but not its exact effect, and leaves account_id and provider_id (and the provider_id null default) entirely unaddressed; an agent cannot tell what provider_id is for or when to supply it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the current and available balance') and scopes it to 'one account', which implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling get_balances and from get_card_balance. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Provides one concrete usage condition for the fresh parameter ('when the answer must reflect a payment made moments ago'), which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over get_balances or get_card_balance, so tool selection is left to inference.

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