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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides little beyond the purpose. It does not confirm read-only behavior, explain what 'pending' statuses mean, describe permissions or side effects, or indicate what the response contains.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a simple read 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?

The tool is simple and its only parameter is fully described in the schema, so the description is minimally sufficient to identify the action. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about what 'pending' results include and how this differs from related wallet tools.

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?

The sole parameter, notification_message, is fully documented in the schema, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning about this parameter or its role in a 'get' operation, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a clear verb, 'Check,' and a specific resource, 'pending wallet top-ups or purchases,' scoped to the account. It distinguishes the tool's focus from wallet-balance or top-up action siblings only implicitly, without naming alternatives.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_wallet_and_job, free_wallet_topup, or purchase_discounted_credits. The 'pending' framing implies a use case, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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