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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful access-control and privacy context: 'Sponsor-only private'. This tells the agent that the tool is restricted and sensitive, which is not captured by the annotations. It does not disclose any rate limits or caching behavior, but given the annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core identity, access scope, and content. Every word carries meaning and there is 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 read-only report tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what the report covers and who may access it. The required task_id follows a clear pattern in the schema, and the agent_key auth note is provided there. The description covers the essential context; occasional gaps like explicit output formatting are minor.

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 description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema already documents agent_key well, but task_id only has a pattern. With 50% schema description coverage, the description could compensate for the missing task_id explanation, but it does not. The only related guidance (agent_key handling) lives in the schema, not in the description.

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 identifies a specific resource (funded task report) and its content (payouts, fees, refund ledger), and distinguishes it as sponsor-only and private. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', but the purpose is clear enough and can be differentiated from siblings such as speedbot_exchange_funded_task_read.

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 implies that only sponsors can access it ('Sponsor-only private') but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like speedbot_exchange_funded_task_read or speedbot_exchange_funded_task_my_tasks. No exclusions or selection conditions are stated.

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