get_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the balance is shared across products and that it gates work from starting, while the return-field explanation clarifies what the agent can expect. This exceeds the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation directly, and the following sentences add relevant context about shared usage and return value units without losing focus.

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 parameterless balance query with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the account-level scope, when this value matters, and the exact return fields (balance_usd and balance_microdollars) with their intended uses. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain about input semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description focuses its extra detail on return value semantics instead, which is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('account's remaining RunComfy balance'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining that this is the account-wide balance shared across deployments, run_model, and training jobs, so the agent can tell it apart from any per-resource operation.

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 gives clear context for when to call it: before work is allowed to start and when checking the shared wallet drawn down by multiple product areas. It does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling provides this exact balance operation, so the contextual trigger is sufficient.

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