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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context: the call is free and reports the current cost of one intent. It does not discuss return structure or failure modes, but that burden is partly reduced by the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the free nature and the returned data, then immediately gives the critical workflow instruction. Every word earns its place.

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-only, idempotent tool, the description covers what it returns, that it is free, and exactly when to call it. No output schema exists, but the listed data fields and the explicit sequencing before publish_intent make this complete enough for correct invocation.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 clearly enumerates what the tool provides: credit balance, at-risk bond, settled history, standing, and current cost of an intent. It also ties it to publish_intent, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit retrieval verb and does not name sibling alternatives.

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 instruction 'Call this before publish_intent' provides a clear, actionable usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the temporal guidance is strong and sufficient for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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