spend_status

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the read-only nature ('Read-only...tools accept these fields without recording a spend decision') and that passing identifiers does not cause a spend record. It also clarifies that the parameters accept identifiers only, which is a key behavioral constraint. This is transparent for a status tool.

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 three concise sentences. The first states the purpose with a clear list of returned components; the second constrains the parameter types; the third clarifies the read-only behavior and distinguishes from spend_decide. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and all parameters are optional, so the description must convey what it returns and how parameters behave. It does both: it lists the status elements returned and explains the effect of the optional parameters. For a read-only status query tool, this is fully complete; no pagination or permission details are necessary.

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 schema already describes each parameter as an identifier and states how it is signed on spend_decide. The description adds that these identifiers are accepted by read-only tools without recording a spend decision, and that spend_decide is the binding tool. This behavioral context is not present in the schema, providing real added value despite 100% schema coverage.

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 action ('Show') and a specific resource ('the active policy'), enumerating the exact components returned (caps, tenant, enforcement mode, decisions, signer identity). It also differentiates from spend_decide by noting that spend_decide binds identifiers into the signed actor, making the scope unmistakable.

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 clear context that the tool is read-only and accepts optional identifiers without recording a spend decision, and contrasts spend_decide as the tool that binds them. This implies when to use this tool (status viewing) versus spend_decide (decision recording). However, it does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools like provenance_preview or verify_receipt, so the guidance is not exhaustive.

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