get_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states a check operation, implying read-only, but does not explicitly mention side effects (likely none), permissions, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a simple operation this is minimal, but without annotations it should at least state it's read-only.

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 short sentence in Russian, directly stating the function without any filler. It is optimally concise and front-loaded, earning a perfect score for structure.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema, a read-only check), the description is minimal but acceptable. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., numeric balance, units, quota components), which could be important for the agent to interpret results. Annotations are absent, so a bit more context would improve completeness.

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, so the schema covers 100% trivially. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is given for 0-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since there are no inputs. Thus the score 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 the tool checks remaining tokens/quota of GigaChat, using a specific verb and resource. It is understandable, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_token_count, which may also relate to token usage. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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. A sibling tool like get_token_count may have overlapping functionality, but no distinction or context is given. An agent cannot infer the appropriate scenario from the description alone.

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