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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that by warning it is a state-changing write 'not safe to repeat blindly' (non-idempotent) and flagging the maintainer auth requirement. It does not describe reversibility or return 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the access restriction, then the conditional tx rule, then the write warning. No wasted text.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers auth, effect, and non-idempotency well. The undocumented 'secret' parameter and absence of any return/response note are the remaining gaps.

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 25% (only tx is documented). The description usefully explains the tx requirement's dependence on the sign of amount_cents, but leaves secret, description, and amount_cents itself unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('append one public treasury ledger row') with a clear scope qualifier ('public treasury'). An agent can distinguish it from the many read/record siblings, though it does not name a direct alternative to route against.

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?

Gives the access prerequisite ('Maintainer only') and conditional usage rules ('Positive income requires a Base transaction hash; negative costs may omit it'). No alternative tool is named, so it stops short of full when-vs-alternatives routing.

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