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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds 'Free to call' and names the exact status fields returned, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

One sentence front-loads the action, then lists the key status aspects and the cost note. There is no filler; every element contributes to helping an agent invoke the tool appropriately.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema. The description names what is checked and that it is free, leaving parameter format to the schema and return values to the output schema. Nothing essential is missing.

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 wallet parameter is already fully documented in the schema with 'Your wallet address,' giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional information about wallet format, validation, or ownership, so it correctly relies on the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('your Soul Badge status'), and enumerates concrete status aspects: eligibility, discount active, days until transferable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling plaza.claim_badge, which is a mutation rather than a read-only status check.

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 communicates clear context: use this to check Soul Badge status, and it is 'Free to call.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but its role as the read-only counterpart to claim_badge is strongly implied.

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