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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value (sats available), the condition at zero balance, and the consequence (patron top-ups cannot be certified). It also mentions the tool is 'Free', implying no cost. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, which is inferred but not guaranteed.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence immediately stating the purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds valuable information without redundancy or fluff.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the tool's role in the broader process (patron top-up certification) and its relationship to purchase_credits, which is helpful for an AI agent deciding between sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details since none exist.

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 checks the operator's tax balance at the Authority, specifying it returns the sats available for certifying patron credit purchases. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like weather_check_balance by clarifying this is the operator's own funding, not a patron 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?

The description explicitly explains when to use the tool (to check available sats for patron top-ups) and what action to take when the balance reaches zero (call purchase_credits). It also clarifies the balance is operator-specific, preventing misuse with patron balances.

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