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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pricing and the per-account/per-wallet free tier, which is valuable non-structural context, and 'cached' hints that results may be stale. However it omits what auth/permission scope api_token needs, cache freshness, and failure/payment behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the cost constraint and required inputs, with no filler. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than padded, so structure is sound.

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?

A two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage needs the description to do much more. What the card data is, cache staleness, and error/payment outcomes are all absent.

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 coverage is 0% for both required parameters and the description only restates their names and requiredness ('Requires api_token and server_id'), adding no format, source, or meaning. It does not tell the agent where server_id comes from (plausibly list_servers), so the schema gap is uncompensated.

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 a resource and a query action ('cached signed dialect card query'), but 'signed dialect card' is unexplained jargon and the description never says what the query returns or why an agent would want it. It is distinguishable from verify_card and list_servers only by implication, not by any explicit contrast.

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?

The cost note ('$0.05; first free once per account and per wallet') is a genuine decision input, but there is no statement of when to use this versus verify_card or list_servers, and no when-not guidance at all. The agent must infer the correct tool 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.