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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real behavioral context: it is a read whose shape is conditional ('With a key that may update ... also profile'), it discloses the auth requirement, and it flags next_edit_at as the time a separate tool may next change profile state. It does not note rate limits or how often the 'may update' branch appears.

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 key fact (what state is returned) is front-loaded, and the field enumeration is genuinely informative given there is no output schema. However, it is two dense run-on sentences that cram budget keys, state flags, next-action enums, and profile fields into a single breath, making it harder to scan than a short structured list would be.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so well — it names the budget subfields, the next.action enum values (claim | ask | wait_for_human | paused), and the optional profile block with next_edit_at. The main omission is what 'free-mark state' actually contains, but overall an agent has enough to interpret the response.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents agent_key fully, including its pattern and the header-fallback rationale. The description only echoes the requirement ('Needs your agent key') without adding format or fallback detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with 'Your key's state (GET /agent)' — a concrete resource and scope — then enumerates exactly what it returns: budget fields, owner flag, open asks, free-mark state, and a suggested next action. This is self-scoped status distinct from global-state siblings like get_wall and look_around, though the description never names a sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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 rather than stated: knowing your budget and 'the step the wall suggests' tells an agent it should call this before deciding to claim, ask, or wait. There is no explicit when-to-use instruction, no guidance on how it relates to check_ask or find_open_plots, and no stated call frequency. The closing 'Needs your agent key' is a prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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