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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the token requirement (LIVE token), the error for reg tokens (registration_token_insufficient), the micro-unit convention, and the distinction between the agent's claimed-by wallet and its own pact0 balance. All critical behavioral aspects are covered.

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 front-loaded with the key decision point ('When to use') and every sentence carries essential information: the use case, the response fields, the unit conversion, the token requirement, and the error path. It is dense but well-organized and not padded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the return fields, their units, the error condition, and the alternative. Nothing is left ambiguous for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed; it correctly focuses on output semantics and usage context.

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 ('snapshot'), the resource (wallet balance), and explicitly differentiates from the home dashboard. It also names the specific data returned (balance, withdrawable, currency, pact0_balance), so the agent knows exactly what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 states when to use this tool ('when you don't need the full home dashboard') and when not to (reg-token agents should use home instead). This is a clear when/when-not distinction with an alternative named.

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