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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is sanitized and that deep/restricted data is not accessible via this tool, which is valuable transparency. It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits, but for a read operation this is acceptable.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys purpose and an important restriction.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly adequate but leaves ambiguity about what 'readiness' actually represents and what the 'deep' parameter controls. It could also briefly clarify the return format or intended use case.

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 input schema has one optional boolean parameter 'deep' with 0% description coverage, yet the description does not explain what 'deep' does or how it relates to the admin-only mention. The description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema for this parameter.

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 clearly states the tool 'Return sanitized public readiness' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from admin-only deep details. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name, but the contrast with admin-only info implies a distinct scope.

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?

It provides context that deep provider balances and BIN internals are admin-only, implying this tool should be used for public readiness and not for deep details. This offers a clear exclusion but does not explicitly name alternative tools, making it slightly less explicit than ideal.

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