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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns JSON, requires x402 prepaid funding, costs $0.01 per call, and cites GDPR compliance. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects and costs.

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 three short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds cost, funding, and compliance details without redundancy or irrelevant fluff.

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?

Given the small parameter set, full schema coverage, output schema presence, and safety annotations, the description provides enough operational and business context. It covers purpose, return format, payment model, compliance, and cost, making the tool fully actionable.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only indirectly maps 'wallet' to owner_wallet and 'signed' to wallet_signature, adding no meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('signed, non-binding monthly subscription quote for a wallet'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like memory.pricing_hint or memory.read, which cover different semantics.

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 intended scenario is implied: use it when a wallet needs a signed monthly subscription quote. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over related tools such as memory.pricing_hint, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites beyond what the schema already requires.

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