get_card_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read but says nothing about caching, authentication, rate limits, or what the 'fresh' flag actually changes (cached vs live fetch), which is the one behavior that materially affects the call.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should do more. It helpfully enumerates the returned fields, but leaves the fresh/provider_id semantics and the distinguishing behavior versus get_balance entirely unaddressed.

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. card_id is inferable from the description, but provider_id (nullable) and especially fresh (boolean, default false) are completely unexplained in both schema and description, so an agent cannot know when to set them.

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 (Get) and resource (card's balance) and even names the returned fields: balance, credit limit, payment due details. It is clearly distinct from the account-oriented get_balance in the resource it targets, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_balance/get_balances, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all, and the sibling set contains get_balance and get_balances, so an agent must guess whether this is the card-scoped variant or a duplicate. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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