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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the genuinely non-obvious traits: a two-step approval flow, no funds movement at call time, and a 24-hour link expiry. It does not state whether repeated calls create duplicate requests, which is the main remaining ambiguity for a non-idempotent write.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with every clause adding a distinct fact (units, bounds, human approval, expiry, tracking endpoint). No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly describes the return (a signed confirmation link) and gives a tracking path, which is the critical follow-up for an async approval. Gaps are minor: the note/version parameters and duplicate-call behavior remain unaddressed.

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 carries the load. It usefully adds the 'cents' unit for amount_credited, though the 2000–1000000 bounds merely restate the schema's minimum/maximum. The 'note' and 'robomart_version' parameters receive no explanation in either place.

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 ('Ask for a Wallet top-up') and pins the unit and range of the key input ('amount_credited cents (2000 to 1000000)'). No sibling tool covers wallet funding, so the agent can identify this immediately.

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?

Explains the flow context: the request produces a signed link that a human completes in Console, and money only moves after that. It also names the follow-up endpoint for tracking. It stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives, but the operational context is clear.

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