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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: free of charge, once-per-desk limit, 30-day cooldown, that a ticket is created for the owner who decides, and that payment afterward needs no key. These are real side effects and constraints the schema cannot express.

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?

Tight and front-loaded, with the trigger condition placed before the mechanics. The bracketed '[free]' tag at the end repeats the opening word 'Free', which is the only waste.

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 2-parameter mutation-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers cost, limits, side effects, expected outcome, and post-approval workflow. Nothing an agent needs before calling 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both `wallet` and `note` are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that `wallet` is the payment wallet ('pay from that wallet') but adds nothing about the optional `note`. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action and object: 'Ask this desk to allow your wallet on its bounties.' No sibling tool does anything comparable, so an agent can distinguish it immediately without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly scopes invocation to a WALLET_NOT_ALLOWED refusal (or a refusal that implies one) and explicitly excludes reading tickets. It also states the 30-day repeat no-op, which prevents a pointless call.

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