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

Beyond the readOnly or idempotent annotations, it explicitly says it does not move, sell, convert, or reserve crypto, that unverified wallets never count, and that the result is a coverage estimate rather than a loan decision. It also says the response lists which requirements are still incomplete, which the annotations do not reveal.

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 core comparison is front-loaded, followed by what the check returns and the usage examples. It is dense but almost every clause adds either scope, a usage trigger, or a safety boundary; the caveat sentences could be tightened slightly.

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?

The description covers the input intent, the verification prerequisite, the kinds of gaps the response reports, and the read-only safety profile, while an output schema already documents the return values. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already fully documented, including the omit-to-use-saved-price behavior. The description confirms that asset narrows the check to one asset and that the target amount is compared against verified buying power, but adds little beyond the schema apart from intent.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it compares target_price_usd against verified buying power and reports remaining gaps (identity check, wallet verification, shortfall). It also separates itself from generate_proof_of_funds by positioning this check as the step before that letter is produced.

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 gives concrete triggers — the "can my Bitcoin cover a $2 million home?" question and pre-Proof-of-Funds checks — and notes that the wallet must be verified. It never names an explicit alternative to use instead (for example, the UI-oriented open_buying_power_panel or generate_proof_of_funds itself), so the routing guidance stops short of full coverage.

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