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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that a WATT balance is required, points to get_pricing for cost/minimum, and warns to check wsi_status because the network may be offline. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether WATT is deducted, failure behavior, or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the operational prerequisites. Every clause is actionable and there is no 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 two-parameter query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers critical operational context: payment requirement and network availability. It still omits expected return behavior and failure modes, but the schema covers the parameters and sibling tools cover pricing/status checks.

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 prompt and wallet are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that the wallet requires WATT, which reinforces the schema but does not add syntax or constraints beyond it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Query WattCoin's distributed AI network (WSI).' It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling utilities like get_pricing and wsi_status by naming them as prerequisites or companions rather than alternatives.

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to get_pricing for current cost/minimum and to check wsi_status before calling, establishing clear prerequisites. It does not compare against wsi_models or other query tools, but the when-to-use conditions are clear.

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