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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: the call is authenticated, and the credits are non-transferable and distinct from monetary/Marketplace value. It does not describe response shape or refresh behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the disambiguating clause is placed at the end where it reads naturally. Slightly under-specified rather than padded, but every sentence carries weight.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back. It names three components (balance, ledger, boost) and rules out two misinterpretations, but leaves 'active contribution boost' and the ledger's contents unexplained for a zero-arg read 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 the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to disambiguate arguments, and nothing misleading is offered about them.

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 is a noun phrase listing what the resource contains (balance, ledger, boost) rather than a verb+resource statement of what the tool does. Combined with the name and title an agent can infer it reads the caller's earned credits, and the closing clause usefully distinguishes it from Marketplace standing, but the purpose is never stated outright.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives. The negative clause 'not money or Marketplace standing' gives a faint routing signal away from marketplace tools like morrowkin_get_marketplace_membership, but no positive condition or sibling is named.

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