get_campus_card_balances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool gets 'live' balances, implying a read-only, real-time operation, but does not elaborate on authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The mention of 'include_raw' hints at optional behavior, but overall transparency is minimal.

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 concise, starting with the main purpose in a single sentence, followed by a clear parameter list. No redundant information is present, and all sentences serve a purpose.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits important context such as whether authentication is required, error handling, or when optional parameters are necessary. The tool's simplicity and four optional parameters make the description adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing brief but meaningful explanations for all four parameters (cart_id, restaurant_id, selected_payment_id, include_raw). These add context beyond the schema, such as 'checkout-context tender eligibility'. While not exhaustive, they are sufficient for basic understanding.

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 retrieves live CarolinaCard/campus-card balances from Grubhub, using a specific verb ('get') and a distinct resource. This differentiates it from siblings like 'get_gift_card_balance' and 'get_payment_methods'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely functional, lacking context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions that would help an agent decide between this and similar balance-checking tools.

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