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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that with 'READ-ONLY: this call changes nothing and can be repeated safely.' It also adds valuable context beyond the annotation: the precise meaning of 'live' (unrevoked AND unexpired) and that a lapsed proof stops authorizing new bindings like a revoked one. This helps the agent understand the semantics of the statuses returned. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, efficiently conveying purpose, semantics, and safety. It front-loads the main function and then clarifies key terms. No fluff. It could be slightly more concise by removing the redundant 'READ-ONLY' note (since annotation already says it), but it's still well-structured.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and status semantics well. However, it omits any explanation of the 'secret' parameter and doesn't describe the response format (e.g., does it return an array? with fields?). Given no output schema, the agent might need hints about the return shape. Also, it doesn't mention any authentication or prerequisite beyond the secret parameter. So it's incomplete for a self-contained definition.

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 schema has one parameter 'secret' with no description (coverage 0%). The description does not mention 'secret' at all, nor its purpose or format. Since schema coverage is zero, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters, and it fails to do so. The agent has no clue what 'secret' is for, whether it's required, or how to populate it. This is a major gap.

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 the user's proved payout addresses with their status (live, expired, revoked). It uses specific terms and implies a list operation, which distinguishes it from siblings like payout_wallet (singular) and payout_wallet_revoke (action). However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or contrast with siblings, so it's not a full 5.

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 gives a clear context: it's a read-only check of address statuses. But it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools like payout_wallet or payouts. It doesn't state exclusions or mention alternatives. The READ-ONLY note implies safe repeated use, but not when to use it vs others. So it's adequate but not explicit.

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