timeweb_get_finances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a safe read operation, and the listed result fields give some transparency. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the data is current versus cached. It is adequate but not detailed.

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 sentence that directly states what the tool does and the core information it returns. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It names the main result categories (balance, discount, hourly cost, payment history), which gives a good sense of the return. It does not explain formatting options in detail, but that is covered by the parameter schema.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter 'format' with an enum and description, providing 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional context about the parameter, so the schema carries the load. This aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('account finances') along with the key data items included (balance, discount, hourly cost, payment history). This distinguishes it from all other sibling tools, none of which are finance-related.

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?

It implies usage when account finance details are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for an obvious read-only finance query, but it does not name other tools or edge cases.

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