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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool exposes balance and ledger information and that topping up belongs elsewhere, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, describe the response shape, or mention any side effects. This is insufficiently transparent for safe tool selection.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second sentence earns its place by pointing to the relevant sibling tool for credit additions.

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, single-optional-parameter wallet tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the core idea and links the main sibling. However, it omits explicit read-only status and return-value expectations, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 single parameter 'api_key' is fully documented in the schema, including its format, optional nature via Authorization header, and where to obtain it. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 clearly identifies the tool as a wallet resource ('Your credit balance and ledger') and differentiates it from the related 'legwork_topup' tool by directing credit-add actions there. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'view' or 'get,' so it stops short of being maximally precise.

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 provides an explicit when-not-to-use signal: 'To add credits: legwork_topup.' This distinguishes wallet from a key sibling. It does not explicitly state when to check the wallet versus other status tools, but the balance/ledger framing makes the primary use case clear.

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