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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: the API-key requirement, the sandbox=true simulator semantics with an explicit warning not to present that balance as real money, and error codes (carteira_nao_liberada) with retry/stop actions.

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 requirement and the wallet fields are front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the middle sentence is a dense comma-spliced list that could be structured as a short bulleted set. No filler sentences, so only minor structural friction.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on documenting the return shape field-by-field (balance buckets, networks[], min_deposit, min_payment_brl, payments_enabled). Combined with the sandbox caveat and error taxonomy, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 for a no-param tool is 4. The description instead spends its budget on output semantics, which is appropriate 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?

The description names a specific resource (the project's USDT wallet) and enumerates exactly what it returns: available, reserved and confirming balances, accepted deposit networks, min_deposit, min_payment_brl and payments_enabled. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling read tools like lunium_get_usdt_pix_payment or lunium_check_payer_limit.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance ('Call it before lunium_request_usdt_deposit or lunium_pay_pix_with_usdt') and states the prerequisite ('Requires an API key'), which routes the agent correctly against nearby siblings. Error recovery paths are also spelled out via the acao codes.

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