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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context: computed from real GL rows (never asserted), live data, the 'unbalancedEntries' defect even when margin is positive, and the always-free cost. It does not contradict annotations and enhances the behavioral profile with operational details.

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 information-dense but well-organized: starts with a purpose question, then details the invariants, conditions, posture, cost, and an example. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tightened; it remains readable and front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains all major return fields (reserve, outstanding, margin, solvent, unbalancedEntries) and the condition for solvency. It covers cost, read-only nature, and data source (live GL). Missing details on mintCutRevenue and commissionRevenue are minor given they are self-explanatory names. Overall, complete for a parameterless 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per criteria. The description confirms no arguments are needed via the example 'call federation_solvency with arguments {}' and describes all return fields, compensating for no output schema. No additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking if the Com float is backed by the dollar ledger's solvency invariant. It specifies the resource (dollar ledger) and the action (returns live solvency metrics), and the question format immediately conveys intent. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on solvency, not latency or pricing.

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?

Provides clear context: it's public, read-only, always free, and used for 'checking whether the backing exists is discovery.' It references 'verify, don't trust' posture shared with federation_latency and federation_pricesheet, implying these are alternatives for similar verification tasks, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or when to prefer another.

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