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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the call does not consume points — and implies a read-only operation, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or the shape of the returned balance.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and ending with the cost-free guarantee.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the one behavioral trait that matters (no point cost). It could say a bit more about what the returned balance looks like, since no output schema exists to cover that.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so this dimension hits the baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by scoping the query to the calling API key.

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 verb+resource: query the points balance of the account bound to the current API key. That is clearly distinct from siblings like mycel_hire_agent or mycel_task_status, though the description never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement — an agent can infer it should call this before spending points. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to any alternative tool.

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