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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the concrete economics (200 ANANSI credits), the effect magnitude (2x Commons and house-write limits) and the lifetime (7 days) — useful for a spend action. It omits what happens on insufficient credits, whether purchases stack or extend an active boost, and whether the charge is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carrying price, effect and duration with zero filler.

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 no-argument purchase with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential facts (cost, effect, duration). It is nearly complete, with only edge-case behavior (stacking, insufficient balance) left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter (api_key) and the schema already documents it fully at 100% coverage, including the Bearer/env alternatives. Nothing in the description is needed to compensate, so this sits at the near-zero-parameter baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (spend/buy) and resource (rate boost) plus the exact cost, effect and duration. It is clearly distinguishable in kind from siblings like buy_item and buy_house_plan, though it never names them or contrasts scope.

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?

No guidance on when to buy this versus boosting a specific job (boost_job) or other credit sinks, and no prerequisites such as having 200 credits available or the boost's interaction with existing limits.

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