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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only status check but does not disclose permissions, whether the wallet parameter scopes results, rate limits, failure behavior, or any return format details.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no obvious filler. However, the dense jargon ("HF31", "verified-settlement") slightly reduces clarity even though it is concise.

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 status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return categories and parameter behavior more fully. It lists status domains but omits the wallet parameter and any indication of response shape or operational context.

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 optional parameter, wallet, with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions wallet at all. It therefore adds no meaning beyond the bare schema type and leaves the parameter's purpose unclear.

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?

It uses a clear verb ("Return") and names several concrete status domains: autonomous money-loop, active-run, swarm-work, and verified-settlement. It is distinguishable as a status-reading tool, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as auto_money_dedupe_status, money_run_status, or earnings_status.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling status tools, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word "status."

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