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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly: it discloses the HTTP relay, authentication requirement, that results are wallet-scoped, the fee behavior (0.5% rail fee), each status meaning, settlement semantics, and the replay window. This is far beyond what the schema alone would reveal.

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 dense but every section earns its place: the opening line front-loads the core purpose, the status legend is essential for interpreting results, and the param/auth details are necessary for correct invocation. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 zero annotations and a moderate two-param schema, the description is complete: it covers inputs, output semantics, status values, payment-fee behavior, cross-referencing to other tools via `attempt_id`, authentication, and paging. The presence of an output schema means return-value shape is already handled, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by documenting `limit` as 1-200 with default 50 and `offset` as paging. This adds range and behavioral meaning the JSON schema does not provide.

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 and resource: it lists the wallet's own charge record, attempt by attempt, and explicitly distinguishes itself from `joules_balance` (how much I have vs what I was charged for). It also names the underlying endpoint, making the resource unmistakable.

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?

It says when to use the tool ('verify your bill without asking us') and explicitly calls out the key alternative (`joules_balance`) with the decision condition. It also clarifies scope ('own wallet only — derived from your credential, never a parameter'), which prevents misuse.

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