Value education pointer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the nature of the content (a reminder, educational, explicitly not tax advice), which is useful behavioral context for a zero-parameter read, but it does not state that the call is read-only, side-effect free, or that the returned text is static and identical on every call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses; the parenthetical adds real disambiguation about scope rather than noise. It could be marginally tighter but nothing is redundant.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned in enough detail (a plain-English educational reminder) and flags the important caveat that it is not tax advice. Slight gap: no indication of whether the text is fixed or context-dependent, though that is low-risk here.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description is consistent with that by describing a self-contained retrieval of fixed content with no filtering or options implied.

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 names a specific verb ('Show') and a concrete resource ('the plain-English reminder about how estimated value is meant to be used'), so an agent knows this returns static explanatory content rather than donation data. It is distinct from the data-oriented siblings like totals or quarterly_summary, though it never explicitly says it takes no input and returns a fixed blurb.

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 parenthetical '(education only, never tax advice)' implies the context in which this content matters, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus explaining value directly or calling a sibling. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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