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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'WRITES: this call changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly' adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation. It also discloses the conditional requirement for a transaction hash, which is a behavioral constraint not present in the schema. 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?

Three sentences, all informative: scope, conditional rule, and write warning. The most important constraint (maintainer only) is front-loaded. Slightly dense but no wasted words.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: who may call it, what it does, the write side effect, and the conditional parameter rule. It doesn't describe the return value or failure modes, but the annotations plus the write warning cover the main risk. The missing 'secret' parameter semantics is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the tx parameter's conditional requirement (positive income requires it, negative costs may omit it) and implies amount_cents is the ledger amount. However, it doesn't explain 'secret' or 'description' beyond what the schema already provides, leaving 3 of 4 parameters under-documented.

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 states a specific verb ('append') and resource ('public treasury ledger row'), and adds a scope qualifier ('Maintainer only'). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by naming the exact ledger operation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with a sibling like 'changes' or 'events', so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 clear context: it's a maintainer-only append operation, and it explains when to include a transaction hash (positive income requires it, negative costs may omit it). It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the maintainer-only qualifier and the ledger-specific wording imply the usage boundary.

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