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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the mutation, the default amount, the per-call cap, and the STALE_SAVE failure mode with recovery steps. It does not discuss reversibility or permissions beyond the login prerequisite.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose, then moves through prerequisites, defaults, error handling, and success reporting. It is dense but largely purposeful, with minor implementation details like the endpoint path and POC filename taking up space.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers prerequisites, amount defaults and caps, stale-state recovery, and what to report after success. A little more detail on failure modes or side effects would make it fully sufficient.

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 the parameters are already documented. The description repeats the default and cap for wallet_inflate_amount_ngn but adds little about notification_message beyond what the schema says, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: add in-game naira via a wallet top-up endpoint. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as send_money or get_wallet_and_job.

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 clear prerequisites: call session_status first, and route through emit_display/input if not signed in. It also provides recovery guidance for STALE_SAVE, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like send_money.

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