paybot_pool_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait — the numbers are an in-process projection and the facilitator is authoritative, so values may be approximate — but it omits permission/auth requirements and any indication of failure modes for an unknown poolId.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the resource front-loaded and the authority caveat correctly subordinated in parentheses. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does state what is returned (treasury balance and per-bot counters) and flags the projection caveat. It stops short of covering auth requirements or behavior on an invalid poolId, leaving a small gap.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter (poolId, "Pool identifier"), so the schema already documents the input. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail for poolId beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ("Report") and a precise resource: a pool's remaining shared treasury plus per-bot local spend/transaction counters. This clearly separates it from write-oriented siblings like paybot_pool_create, paybot_pool_allocate, and paybot_pool_revoke, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus paybot_balance, paybot_history, or the other pool tools. The parenthetical about in-process projection vs. the facilitator implies a data-freshness caveat but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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