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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'real-time' behavior and the inclusion of 'accrued micro-payment debt' as a returned element, but does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, or explicitly confirm read-only status. The verb 'Returns' implies safety but could be more explicit.

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 that names three specific data points (balance, status, debt) with zero wasted words. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple getter with no output schema, the description lists the returned elements but leaves the format of 'status' and 'accrued micro-payment debt' undefined. Given the absence of annotations, slightly more detail on the output structure would improve completeness, but the core purpose is clear.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter agentID ('The agent whose wallet to query.'), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is 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 uses the verb 'Returns' with specific resources (wallet balance, status, accrued micro-payment debt) and scope ('for an agent'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like wallet_list_transactions and wallet_get_autopay_threshold. This matches the high standard of specificity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose—querying a wallet's real-time balance—but no explicit comparison to siblings like trust_check_wallet or wallet_list_transactions is provided.

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