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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is free (no credits consumed), requires proof of npub ownership to prevent scraping, and returns specific data types. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but provides sufficient behavioral context for safe use.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds unique value: purpose, content, clarification, cost/auth. No fluff or redundancy.

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 output schema exists and the tool has moderate complexity (3 params), the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, authentication requirement, and cost. Could mention the time scope (e.g., statement period) or that it's per-operator, but overall sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., proof requirement for dpop_token) but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond schema definitions. The description's mention of 'proof of npub ownership' reinforces the dpop_token's purpose.

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?

Clearly states 'Generate a patron's account statement' and lists all returned components (purchase history, credit tranches, usage breakdown, daily logs). Distinguishes from sibling 'schwab_account_statement_infographic' by specifying textual/log output, and explicitly differentiates from operator's Authority tax balance.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings. Does mention it's for the patron's spending account (not operator's tax) and requires npub proof, but does not advise when to choose this over 'schwab_account_statement_infographic' or other account tools.

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