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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds valuable context about the approval requirement and the fact that funds remain frozen until human action. It also clarifies the agent's lack of self-funding capability, which is useful behavioral disclosure.

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 four sentences long, each earning its place: it states the purpose, gives usage context, explains the approval mechanism, and provides how-to advice. The most critical information (when to use) appears early, and there is no verbose or redundant content.

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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, the approval dependency, and how to formulate the request. Minor omissions like exception handling or response format are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds meaningful guidance for the 'reason' parameter, advising to write a short pitch with what to buy and expected return. It does not add extra detail for 'amount_usdc', but the overall guidance improves usability beyond the schema.

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 verb 'ask' and resource 'your human for more capital,' making the primary purpose obvious. It also specifies that it creates an approval request. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like budget_status or get_approval, so it falls short of the top score.

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 gives an explicit condition: 'Use this when you are out of funds, or about to be, and there is work worth doing.' It also notes that the agent cannot fund itself and that nothing moves until approval, which clarifies the decision context. It does not name alternative tools, but the provided guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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