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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints by disclosing the cost model ('Free by default; metered at $0.003 USDC only when the operator sets MCP_PAYWALL=true'). It also explains the conditional output behavior tied to daily_burn_usd.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The first front-loads the purpose and metric list; the second adds the only non-obvious operational detail (cost/paywall). Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description provides everything an agent needs to call correctly: what to pass, what output dimensions to expect, and when the optional param changes behavior. The paywall semantics and conditional recommendation are fully specified.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the effect of daily_burn_usd: it produces days of USDC runway and a recommendation about the GBLIN surplus. Wallet_address and _payment are adequately served by 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Analyze an agent wallet's treasury health') and then enumerates exact metrics: GBLIN/USDC/ETH balances, ETH exit coverage at live gas price, redemption cooldown, and optional runway. This level of specificity makes it clearly distinct from sibling treasury tools like treasury.quote or treasury.state.

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 context for use is clear: call this when you need treasury health diagnostics for an agent wallet. It also gives a conditional usage rule ('if daily_burn_usd is provided') for getting runway and a recommendation. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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