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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, establishing that this is a safe read. The description adds useful context ('authenticated', 'approved agent budget', 'integer CZK halere'), but does not disclose deeper behavior such as authentication failure behavior, whether the budget resets, or how the approved budget is computed.

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?

One concise, well-structured sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then specifies the returned values and units. There is no filler, tautology, or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately identifies the two returned values and their unit. The phrase 'remaining approved agent budget' is slightly ambiguous about whether it is a per-agent or global budget, but this does not materially block 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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4. The description cannot add parameter-level detail, but it does clarify what the returned values represent, which is the most relevant semantic contribution here.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource (the authenticated wallet), and the exact values returned (wallet balance and remaining approved agent budget) with units. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_profile, get_quote, and get_order.

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 description implies the appropriate use case: call this when the agent needs wallet or budget information. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the zero-parameter read-only nature and absence of any other wallet-specific sibling make the intended usage clear.

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