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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data and the description does not contradict it. The description adds only a hint about what information is reported; it says nothing about what the two status facets contain, whether values are static or fetched live, or how the paid authority relates to the other tools.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and the primary subject, though the second clause ('canonical paid execution authority') is dense jargon that could have been stated more plainly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does not: an agent cannot tell whether 'status' is a boolean, an enum, or a structured object, nor how the two reported facets are separated. For a zero-parameter introspection tool it is minimally adequate but leaves the caller guessing about the response.

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 per the baseline the schema carries no semantic burden the description must compensate for. The description introduces no parameter behavior to confuse the caller.

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 verb 'Report' and the pairing of two specific subjects ('pre-spend discovery status' and 'canonical paid execution authority') give the tool a recognizable purpose, but both subjects are domain jargon that an agent cannot interpret without outside knowledge. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools (ghostkey_catalog, ghostkey_policy, ghostkey_quote), which are presumably the adjacent sources of that information.

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 guidance on when to call this versus ghostkey_policy or ghostkey_catalog, no prerequisites, and no stated conditions. The agent is left to infer that this is a general status/introspection call from the name alone.

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