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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it is board-side, not chain-side; credits sent outside a settlement door, retired by the holder, or spent elsewhere will not appear. It also clarifies cost/signer requirements ('free, keyless, nothing to sign') and notes that the reply itself states its board-side nature. These are exactly the kind of exclusions an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting returned figures.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and most content earns its place by clarifying board-side scope and exclusions. Minor redundancy exists: 'Free, keyless, no wallet connection needed, just the address' is echoed later by 'Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign.' The all-caps emphasis is a stylistic quirk, not a structural flaw.

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 financial statement tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers scope, exclusions, cost/auth, and when to use it. It leaves no essential behavioral question unanswered for an agent calling it with a wallet address.

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 coverage is 100% (single workerWallet parameter with its own description: 'Address only, never a private key'). The description repeats that only an address is needed but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('The time-bank statement for one wallet') and enumerates exactly which figures it reports (hours claimed, accepted, settled, VSH credit in/out, board-record holding). It explicitly distinguishes itself from a chain balance and names the authoritative alternative. An agent can tell this is a read-only board-side statement, not a generic ledger.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('whenever the person asks how they are doing, what they have earned, or what they can spend') and when-not ('Read Regen Ledger for the real balance'). However, it does not route among the many sibling statement tools (account_statement, hour_card, my_ledger, my_money), leaving some ambiguity about which board statement to pick.

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