get_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Does not consume credits.' It also implies read-only nature and provides context about error handling (NO_CREDITS). This is solid coverage for a simple tool, though it does not mention potential rate limits or other failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and a crucial note about credits. It is compact, every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the return fields and the main use cases. It includes workspace ID, balance, plan, and free comparison status, which are the essentials. It could explicitly list all return fields, but the provided info is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds value by explaining what the response contains (credit balance, free comparison availability, plan, workspace ID), which is more than the schema provides.

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 function: getting account status including credit balance, free comparison availability, plan, and workspace ID. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like compare_documents or export_comparison_pdf, which focus on document operations.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use before compare_documents to ensure payment capability, or after a NO_CREDITS error to confirm balance and obtain a purchase URL. This gives clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it relative to other siblings, though the separation is evident from purpose.

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