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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the protocol can only move what the wallet has granted, and the permit is a one-time signature grant that the protocol submits. It doesn't mention rate limits or latency, and the output schema covers return shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the check itself and followed by the remediation path. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, allowance model, and the escape hatch to the sibling tool.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and it does explain what a false canBuy/canSell means and how to fix it. The title's promise of 'what it still owes' (required collateral or allowance amounts) is only loosely addressed, a small remaining gap for a two-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so chainId and collateralToken are already documented in the schema, including the Base 8453 reference and address format. The description adds nothing about how either parameter affects the status check, which is acceptable given the schema carries that burden.

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: check whether the agent wallet can already buy and sell. It also names the sibling tool that resolves a negative result (kellian_trading_setup_permit), so an agent can separate this status check from the permit grant without opening either schema.

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 gives explicit routing: if canBuy/canSell is false, use kellian_trading_setup_permit once via signature. That is a clear when-to-use-this vs use-that rule. It doesn't say when in a workflow the check should be run (for example, before placing an order) or when it can be skipped, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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