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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declare that this is a safe, closed lookup, so the description's remaining job is small. It usefully adds that points are platform credits rather than money, which prevents value misinterpretation, but says nothing else about behavior or return shape.

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 sentences, no filler, with the balance breakdown front-loaded. The first sentence's fragment style ('Your points: available, held in escrow for your tasks, total') is slightly terse but still parseable.

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 output schema, the description must convey the return structure, and it does by enumerating the three counts plus the credit-vs-money caveat. Only the lack of any pointer to the related ledger tool leaves a small gap.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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?

Names the resource (points) and the three balances returned (available, escrowed, total), so an agent can tell what it retrieves. It doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling get_points_ledger, which is the only clarity gap.

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 get_points_ledger or get_agent; the agent must infer that this is a current-snapshot read and the ledger is history. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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