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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real context beyond them: the 'Owner only' authorization requirement and the fallback to the cabinet page's default period when no dates are supplied. It stops short of describing throttling or response shape.

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 tight sentences with the data breakdown front-loaded, followed by default behavior and access constraint. No filler, though the phrasing is slightly telegraphic.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the daily fields (start/end balance, spend, top-ups). Combined with the default-period rule and owner restriction, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only project_id is documented), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that from/to are optional and default to the cabinet period, but adds no format or range semantics beyond the schema's pattern.

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 states a specific resource and breakdown: daily balance at start and end of day, spend on the bot, and top-ups. 'Day by day for a period' implies a granularity that distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like dosai_get_balance or dosai_list_balance_history, though those alternatives are never named.

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 gives the default-period behavior when dates are omitted and the 'Owner only' access constraint, which is useful invocation context. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over dosai_get_balance or dosai_list_balance_history, leaving the choice to inference.

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