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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by naming the fields the tab exposes, which matters since there is no output schema. It still omits units, freshness, and the meaning of "remaining".

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the field list. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument read tool. The unexplained "NFA" abbreviation is the one non-earning fragment.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so by listing the four exposed fields. An agent can act correctly on this. Remaining gaps are formatting/units and the ambiguous "NFA".

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline is 4. No parameter-level confusion is possible here.

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 specific verb+resource ("Consulta el tab de gasto del agent") and even enumerates the contents of that tab (daily cap, per-tx cap, remaining, allowlist). It is clear what the tool does, though it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like temple_get_receipt or temple_verify. The unexplained "NFA" token and the language switch to Spanish slightly dilute clarity.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. An agent must infer that this is a pre-spend budget check rather than, say, a receipt lookup. The trailing "NFA" is opaque and provides no usable guidance.

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