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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether this is purely a read/compute operation — and the word "destroyed" in the name could even suggest mutation. It only gestures at the output semantics (was -> now, in your currency).

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with a category tag, so it is compact and wastes few words. But the compression comes at the cost of clarity — parenthetical jargon substitutes for meaning rather than earning its place.

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 tool with an undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: it never explains what should go in "items" or what the tool returns. It falls well short of what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 "items" parameter has 0% schema description coverage (only array/string/maxLength/maxItems constraints), and the description adds nothing about what the items represent or their expected format. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate.

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 domain concept ("cost destroyed: money you did NOT spend (was -> now), kept in your currency") and tags itself as a FIND/plumbing tool, which hints at a computed, non-mutating lookup. However it never states a concrete verb+resource, and "cost destroyed" is jargon an agent must interpret. It is not clearly differentiated from the sibling steward_budget.

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 when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives despite steward_budget being an obvious sibling. Usage must be entirely inferred from the title fragment.

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