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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: it will not reserve or charge, it still works after expiry, and a missing hold does not prove an in-flight commit cannot land. The warning to preserve the original key is an operational caveat not present in the annotations. It stops short of describing what the response contains, though an output schema exists.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the purpose, the non-charging guarantee, and the safety warning each appear in the order an agent needs them.

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 an output schema and full annotations, the description is not required to explain return values or safety. However, for a four-parameter tool with a deeply nested request and 0% schema coverage, the omission of approval_receipt and of any guidance on request fidelity leaves a meaningful 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the request object is deeply nested, so the description carries real weight. It maps the three required inputs to their meaning ('the original quote, request and stable key') and stresses reusing the original key, but leaves the optional approval_receipt and the requirement that the request be byte-identical unexplained.

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 verb and resource ('Find an uncertain wallet reservation') plus the identifying inputs, so the agent knows exactly what is being looked up. It is clearly distinct from the motion/job siblings, but it never names or contrasts with a sibling tool such as get_cloud_motion_status or get_cloud_motion_receipt.

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?

'Uncertain ... including after expiry' tells the agent the situation that selects this tool: a reservation whose state is unknown, even past expiry. It does not state any when-not-to-use case or name an alternative lookup path, so a small amount is left to inference.

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