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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the required permission, that funds come from the account wallet, that both spending caps are affected, and that settlement is unchanged. It stops short of explaining failure, refund, or idempotency behavior beyond requiring a requestId.

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 four compact sentences, front-loads the core action, and each sentence adds practical information without repetition.

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 financial mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers permissions, wallet source, spending-cap effects, and required identifiers. It leaves some ambiguity around what 'Equal settlement is unchanged' means and what happens after a successful contribution.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies that amount is a whole number of at least 1 KBUX and that requestId must be a UUID, though it does not explain requestId's purpose (e.g., idempotency).

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 gives a specific verb (Contribute), a specific resource (today's MUDD Pot), and the source of funds (account wallet). It is clearly distinguishable from pot_status and other sibling tools.

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 implies the tool is for adding funds to the MUDD Pot and states prerequisites (buy permission, spending caps), but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus checking pot_status or other financial tools.

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