waros_balances

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, permissions, response format, or side effects. The description solely states the purpose without elaborating on behavior.

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 with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary detail, making it efficiently concise. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, though it meets the basic expectation for conciseness.

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?

The description is far from complete for a tool with two parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the 'fields' parameter, expected response, or any operational details. Given the lack of annotations and minimal content, an agent would have insufficient information to use the tool 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 description adds no information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The schema documents 'profile_ids' but leaves 'fields' undescribed. With 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate or clarify the 'fields' parameter, offering no added contextual value.

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 returns 'WAROS balance' for a list of profiles, identifying the resource (balances) and scope (multiple profiles). It differentiates from sibling tools like waros_estimate or waros_customer by the focus on balances, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The purpose implies usage for balance retrieval, but no explicit instructions.

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