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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context: the call costs 1 api_sat, proof is verified by debit_or_deny before cost is incurred, and the output is a dark-themed SVG with specific visual sections. It does not mention rate limits or state mutations, but the disclosed cost and verification behavior are genuinely useful beyond the schema.

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 compact: three sentences, primary purpose first, then output contents, then cost and verification. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition or 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 tool with a rich output schema, fully documented parameters, and one highly relevant sibling, this description is complete enough. It covers what the tool produces, how it relates to account_statement, what it costs, and the verification mechanism, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents npub, dpop_token, and days thoroughly. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter formats or usage beyond what the schema provides, so no bonus is warranted.

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: 'Generate a visual SVG infographic of your account statement.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling goodearth_account_statement by stating it returns the same data but rendered as a dark-themed SVG graphic, making the tool's unique role clear.

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 clarifies the tool is the visual counterpart to account_statement, which tells an agent when to prefer it: when an infographic is needed rather than raw statement data. It does not explicitly list exclusion conditions or alternative tools beyond this one comparison, so it falls just short of full 5.

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