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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'authenticated' qualifier and the exact fields returned, which is useful context, but it does not go deeper into behavior such as balance freshness, caching, or auth requirements beyond the word 'authenticated.'

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 sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical list conveys the exact scope efficiently. 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 wallet summary tool, the description is complete: it says what the wallet summary includes, annotations cover the safety profile, and an output schema exists to define the return shape. No essential invocation information is missing.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return content instead.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('authenticated org wallet summary'), and enumerates the included fields (USD balances, plan, concurrent_run_limit, auto-topup, past_due). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling file/run/design tools, which have different domains.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for retrieving the org wallet summary. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool is mentioned, but no sibling appears to be a wallet-related alternative, so exclusions are not required. Still, it does not explicitly state a selection rule.

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