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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, lowering the bar. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the platform prerequisite (Connect+Treasury+Issuing), the honest-failure behavior when unsupported, and the explicit instruction not to invent a cap. This materially improves agent expectations.

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 and then structured routing guidance. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to some repetition between the intro and the routing block, but every section earns its place and the routing format is highly scannable for an agent.

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?

Given the single well-documented parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, this description is fully sufficient. It covers purpose, when to use it, sibling exclusions, platform limitations, expected return semantics, and the related grant tool. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% for the single required parameter companyId, and the schema already explains it as the FreedomOS company id and membership requirement. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond 'this company's', so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 names a specific verb ('See') and resource ('founder-granted spend envelope'), and further defines the tool's output as whether the CEO can spend, the monthly cap, or why spend is unreachable. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_receive_status and get_credit_usage.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when you need to know whether the CEO can spend...') and a dedicated routing block that names the correct alternative for granting/raising (grant_spend_envelope) and excludes get_receive_status and get_credit_usage with reasons. It also instructs the agent to return an honest catch rather than fabricate a cap on unsupported platforms.

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