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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behaviorikuha. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that the data is scoped to the calling key and by noting the tool is free, which is not inferable from annotations or schema.

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 compact sentence that lists the key returned data and the cost trait, with the title providing additional at-a-glance context. No words are wasted.

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 parameterless, read-only account-status tool, the description and annotations fully cover what an agent needs: what data it returns, that it is scoped to the caller, that it is free, and that it is safe. An output schema would help but is not critical for this simple tool.

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 tool has zero parametersable, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. The description still adds scope context ('calling key's'), which is helpful even though no input schema is needed.

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 identifies the resource (the calling key's credit/usage state) and the specific data points returned: credit balance, spend today, daily cap, and rate limits. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the account-oriented scope is distinguishable from catalogue and lookup.

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 no guidance on when to call this tool versus propertycheck_catalogue or propertycheck_lookup. There is no mention of prerequisites, timing, or exclusion criteria; the 'Free.' fragment adds cost context but not usage direction.

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