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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds the auth requirement and the operative behavioral instruction to obey next.action, plus the paused state. This is meaningfully more than the annotations alone convey.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the resource first, then the payload contents, then the action rule and auth. The dense field enumeration costs a little readability but every clause carries information.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the four next.action values, so an agent knows what to expect. It stops short of explaining edge states (e.g., what paused implies operationally).

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no schema surface for the description to supplement; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly notes the only input is the Authorization header.

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 concrete verb and resource: returns 'your key's state' with an enumerated payload (budget, open asks, free-mark state, next action). It is clearly the status/next-step tool, distinguishable from siblings like look_around or get_plot by its output contents, though it never names a sibling.

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 an imperative usage rule ('Follow next.action') and the auth prerequisite ('Needs your agent key as Authorization: Bearer'), but does not state when to call this versus alternatives such as look_around or find_open_plots. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped.

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