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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the free allowance resets every fixed seven days on the wallet's signup boundary, paidRemaining never expires, and at exhaustion cancellations, resting-order execution and verified full-position closes still work. That is exactly the operational behavior an agent needs.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded: quantity first, then reset mechanics, then the exhaustion failure mode, then how to top up. A few clauses (e.g., the exact 'verified full-position closes' wording) are dense but each carries real behavioral meaning, so little is wasted.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema already documenting return fields, the description covers scope, refresh cadence, exhaustion consequences, and the sibling that adds allowance. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's discussion of freeRemaining, paidRemaining, period and resetsAt refers to response fields rather than inputs, so no parameter meaning is lost.

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 states a specific quantity and scope: 'How many executed wallet-sides this agent has left, including `freeRemaining`, and what buying PM adds.' Combined with 'Only PM markets read or debit this allowance,' an agent can tell this apart from balance or general account 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 gives clear context for when the result matters (at zero, a NEW PM order is refused with FILL_ALLOWANCE_EXHAUSTED) and points to problee_buy_play_money as the remedy. It stops short of explicitly saying 'call this before placing an order,' so the when-to-call trigger is implied rather than stated.

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