get_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the conditional BYOK request, error handling (byok_error), and default behavior (null when omitted). It implies read-only access via 'authenticated customer' and idempotency but could explicitly state that it is a safe read operation.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and parameter behavior with no redundant text. Every sentence adds necessary detail.

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 (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers the input behavior and high-level output (balances, BYOK field). It could explicitly mention the response structure (e.g., object with fields like managed_usd, currency, byok_balance_usd) but is adequate for a straightforward read operation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the effect of include_byok on the response (including BYOK balance, null vs value, error handling).

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 verb ('Return') and the resource ('the authenticated customer's GammaInfra balances: managed (USD) and currency'), with a specific scope and differentiation from sibling tools (get_status, chat_completions, list_models).

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 explains when to use the include_byok parameter and the behavior for both true and false cases. It implicitly states the tool's purpose for balance retrieval but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, which is acceptable given unrelated siblings.

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