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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond annotations: the call does not reserve or consume an attempt, and shared networks share the campaign allowance, which materially affects how an agent reads the returned count.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is checked and what is not consumed; each sentence carries distinct information (scope, non-side-effects, allowance semantics) with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and there are no parameters to enumerate. With annotations covering the safety profile and the description covering non-consumption and allowance sharing, nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and baseline is 4. The description's reference to 'the requesting network' usefully implies the network identity is derived from the caller's context rather than supplied as an argument.

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 ('Check') and resource ('remaining free attempts for m2m_escrow_arbitration_ruling'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling free_trial (which would consume an attempt) and the ruling tool itself. An agent can pick this without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly delineates what this call does NOT do ('No evaluation, reservation or payment'), which tells the agent to use it as a pre-check rather than as a substitute for free_trial. It stops short of naming the sibling as the alternative when attempts are exhausted, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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