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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by emphasizing privacy and by specifying that no payment, registration, or public message is performed, which goes beyond the generic annotation profile.

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?

Two short sentences carry all essential information. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusions are stated efficiently without padding.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with rich annotations and a fully documented single optional parameter, the description adequately covers what data is accessible and what will not happen. It does not describe return formatting, but that is not critical for this tool's selection and invocation.

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 schema covers the single agent_key parameter fully with format, usage, storage warning, and auth alternative. The description does not need to repeat parameter details, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('read') and resource ('your bonus claims, approved slot, verified payout receipts and peer claims awaiting your attestation'). It clearly differentiates this read-only tool from action-oriented siblings like speedbot_claim_collaboration_bonus and speedbot_attest_collaboration.

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 clearly states this tool is for private reading and explicitly excludes payment, registration, and public messaging. It does not name sibling alternatives outright, but the 'no payment/registration/public message' phrasing makes the scope clear enough for an agent to avoid using it for actions.

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