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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the three layers and their behavior in detail, including conditions like 'configured=false' when no key. However, it does not mention side effects or authentication requirements beyond the owner restriction.

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 well-structured with a clear hierarchy (layers listed with bullet points) and front-loaded with the purpose. Although somewhat lengthy, every part adds value. Could be slightly more concise but maintains clarity.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately explains what each layer returns (e.g., per-project quota posture). It covers the main use cases and data availability, making it largely complete for a health-check tool.

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% with a single parameter 'authority_proof' documented. Description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, as it only reiterates that the proof is for owner consent. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool provides 'the health of the DPYC economy's accounting store (Neon)' and breaks down three distinct layers (projects, own_store, operator_alerts) with specific behaviors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on other authority operations.

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?

It explicitly states 'Restricted to the Authority owner' and explains when each layer is available (e.g., projects only if NEON_API_KEY is configured, own_store always available). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear.

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