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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are aggregate totals across active pools and reflect current purchasability, but it does not mention permission requirements, freshness of data, or whether inactive pools are excluded. This is adequate but leaves meaningful operational gaps.

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 two concise sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded. Every phrase contributes useful meaning, and there is no repetition or filler.

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 simple read-only query with two optional, fully documented parameters, the description gives enough context to call the tool correctly. It could be more complete by explaining return shape or how duration filtering affects the reported totals, especially since no output schema exists.

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 the input schema already documents resourceType and durationMinutes clearly. The description adds no further parameter meaning such as how the duration filter affects totals or whether filtering one resource changes the other. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: getting total available Energy and Bandwidth across active pools. It also clarifies the practical meaning as how much can be purchased right now. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as buy_energy or get_pool_stats, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'how much resource can be purchased right now' implies this is a pre-purchase availability check, giving some context for when to use it. However, it does not state when to choose this over buy_energy, estimate_cost, or get_pool_stats, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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