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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description reinforces 'Free, read-only', so no contradiction. It adds substantial behavior beyond the annotation: the `available`/`note` signaling, card-eligibility and VAT rules, the auto-top-up consent step, and the low-balance pause lift condition.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action before the conditional branches, and the structure follows a logical order. It is long for a zero-parameter tool and carries granular policy (Korean VAT percentage) that could be trimmed, but most sentences carry actionable instructions.

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?

Given an output schema already exists, the description need not explain returns yet does, and it covers the availability branch, user warnings, and follow-up (start servers with lavela.compute_lifecycle). Nothing an agent needs to invoke and act on this tool 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 input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes further by explaining output fields (`url`, `available`, `note`) and their semantics, which is more than the empty schema conveys.

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 and resource: it returns the console page where the USER adds funds, and instructs to hand over the `url` verbatim. The purpose is unmistakable, though it never names the money-adjacent siblings (create_checkout, connect_stripe) it could be confused with.

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?

Gives clear operating context: never take card details or move money, hand the link over verbatim, and relay the `note` when `available:false`. It handles the unavailable branch and tells the agent what to warn the user about, but stops short of explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing.

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