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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one useful behavioral fact – the result is scoped to the authenticated SimplyGuest customer, implying an auth requirement – but says nothing about what the counts mean (e.g. whether 'used' is lifetime or per-period).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the actor, the resource, and exactly which values are returned. No filler.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the two things that matter: who the data belongs to and what values come back. There is no output schema, so a note on count semantics or units would have closed the last gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (token wallet) and names the exact quantities returned (available and used token counts). Scoped to the authenticated customer, which separates it from sibling listing tools like list_my_token_history and list_my_token_orders, though those siblings are never explicitly referenced.

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?

Usage is implied by 'available and used token counts' – an agent can infer this is a balance-check tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use signal, no statement of when to prefer it over list_my_token_history or list_my_token_orders, and no prerequisites mentioned.

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