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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds only a resource qualifier ('live always-on'), which hints at current liveness, but it does not describe output, failure behavior, or any other runtime traits.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. It is compact, though 'live' and 'always-on' are somewhat redundant, so it is not perfectly economical.

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 does not clarify what the returned status contains, and 'payment authority' is left as an unexplained domain term. However, the tool has zero parameters and strong safety annotations, so the missing context is limited mostly to expected response shape and domain meaning.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific action ('Check') and resource ('SqueezeOS payment authority'), with the 'live always-on' qualifier suggesting this probes current availability. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling check_payment, but the resource naming gives it a distinct target.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus check_payment, list_paid_apis, or payment_info. The 'always-on' phrase implies availability but provides no conditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection hints.

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