Get Organization Balance

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, etc.), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds minimal value by specifying what is retrieved ('current balance and currency'), but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations covering safety and behavior, the description is mostly complete. It specifies what data is retrieved, but could be slightly enhanced by mentioning the return format or any limitations. However, for a read-only tool with good annotations, it's sufficient.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'organization_id' well-documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning or context about this parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score for high schema coverage without compensating with additional insights.

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 ('current balance and currency for an organization'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_get_wallet' or 'dual_get_organization', which might also retrieve financial or organizational data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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, such as other 'get' tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'dual_get_wallet' or 'dual_get_organization'). It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for its use, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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