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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds context beyond them: it returns four specific credit categories and requires an ownership plus current selected-Space access check, which is real authorization behavior an agent should anticipate. It does not say what happens when the access check fails.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the returned data first, then the access precondition. Slightly dense phrasing ('after checking its current selected-Space access') 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. For a single-parameter read tool the description supplies scope, authorization precondition and payload categories; only the task_id format and failure behavior remain unstated.

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 must carry task_id meaning. 'An owned internal agent Task' does indicate the identifier refers to a task the caller owns, but nothing conveys the UUID format or that it must be an internal (not community) task.

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: reading four named Credit buckets (accepted, consumed, reserved, available) for an owned internal agent Task. The scope ('owned internal agent Task') implicitly separates it from account_usage and hive_wallet, but it never names those siblings outright.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope: use this when you need spend details for one internal agent Task. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer account_usage or hive_wallet instead, and no prerequisites (e.g. ownership requirement) spelled out as a selection rule.

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