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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses the pay-first model, the absence of a persistent balance, and the open/closed market gate. However, it is ambiguous whether calling this endpoint has side effects such as minting an invoice, and it does not state whether the call is read-only.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs each return field's meaning into inline code formatting. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary background.

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 one-parameter endpoint with no output schema, the description explains the meaning of every return field and the payment model, and the schema fully covers the contract parameter. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit statement on when to call it relative to the sibling tools, but that gap is largely usage guidance rather than missing operational context.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter, `contract`, with rich detail including the default behavior, the retry_with relationship, and the contract_mismatch refusal. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 100% schema coverage sets the baseline at 3.

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 identifies what the tool returns: the price parameters for the next hekte_ask on a pay-first door, including price_sat, invoice_expiry_s, pay_first, and open. It also directly clarifies that 'balance' is a misnomer — no balance exists. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', but the resource and scope are unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use hekte_balance versus its siblings hekte_ask or hekte_job. The phrasing 'PRICE of the next hekte_ask' implies it should be consulted before placing an ask, but this is left to inference rather than stated.

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