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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it works at any stage but does not explicitly say it is read-only, lacks side effects, or mention authentication requirements or rate limits. The minimal behavioral information is insufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, each adding essential information without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action, it wastes no words.

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?

Despite having an output schema and a simple parameter set, the description omits any explanation of parameters. It does not guide the agent on how to use envelope or receipt_id, leaving ambiguity. The tool's purpose is clear, but parameter usage is unaddressed.

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 description provides no explanation for the two parameters (envelope, receipt_id). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it offers no guidance on their purpose or when to use them.

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 clearly states the verb 'Check' and specifies the resources: wallet balance, locker state, and lifecycle stage. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nukez_confirm or nukez_provision by indicating it is a read-only status check that works at any stage.

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 explicitly notes that it 'Works at any stage — no active locker required,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention specific alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling list implies other tools for other actions.

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