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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm safety, mention authentication requirements, or describe side effects. The tool appears to report on blockers, but behavioral details are absent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though the under-specification is a separate issue. The structure is efficient for what little content it provides.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is insufficient. An agent would not know what the tool returns, how to use the wallet parameter, or what constitutes a successful call. More context is needed for reliable 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 schema has one parameter ('wallet') with zero description coverage, and the description does not explain its role. The phrase 'wallet-signature blockers' hints at wallet relevance, but does not clarify whether wallet filters results, is optional, or affects output. This does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 gives a verb ('Show') and lists three categories of output: canonical active jobs, duplicate excess rows, and wallet-signature blockers. However, these terms are jargon and not explained, and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings like auto_money_status or money_run_status. The purpose is inferable but vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as auto_money_status or money_run_status. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided. The agent must guess based on the name alone.

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