start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the critical behavioral trait: this tool spends/reserves wallet cents, which signals a financial side effect. However, it does not explain whether the action is reversible, what happens on failure, or whether any confirmation or safeguards are involved, leaving gaps for a fund-moving operation.

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 exceptionally brief and front-loaded, with the key differentiator ('ONLY spend tool') first. No words are wasted. While it could be more expansive, for pure conciseness it earns a high score.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, this is a financial execution tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not explain the workflow context (e.g., that it follows a quote step, that legal_acceptance is mandatory, how to track progress afterward, or what webhook events relate to it). An agent is left to infer the larger process from sibling names and parameter names, which is insufficient for a money-spending step.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no substantive parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; the 'locked quote_id' mention is redundant with the schema. 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 clearly identifies this as the spend tool with a specific verb ('spend'/'reserves wallet cents') and a specific resource (the locked quote_id). The phrase 'ONLY spend tool' differentiates it from the sibling tools (inspect, quote, status, download, receipt) without requiring the agent to open their schemas.

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 framing 'ONLY spend tool' implies this is used when the agent needs to commit funds, giving some selection context among siblings. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the others, no prerequisites, and no mention of what should happen before or after calling it.

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