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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Return the smack balance,' but it does not explicitly mention side effects, authorization needs, or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple getter but not fully transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage guidance in the second sentence earns its place by explaining decision relevance.

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 simple one-parameter getter, the description is nearly complete. It states what is returned and why an agent would call it. Since there is no output schema, it does not explicitly describe the return format, but 'smack balance' and the title 'How many smacks are left' provide enough inference for basic use.

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 walletToken as 'A walletToken from check_purchase.' The description repeats the parameter name but adds little beyond the schema; its main contribution is clarifying that the balance is 'held by' the token.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('smack balance held by a walletToken'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_boss, get_graveyard, and smack_boss, which operate on different game resources.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use it to decide whether to keep smacking or to buy another pack.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but it provides enough context for an agent to know this is a balance-checking decision aid.

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