token_ledger

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by naming the three pieces of information returned, and by revealing the health zone is an enumerated GREEN/YELLOW/RED alert. However, it never explains what the zones mean, what thresholds trigger them, whether the call is free of side effects, or whether OCCE savings are per-session or lifetime.

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 sentence with no filler, with the primary subject (token usage) front-loaded ahead of the secondary metrics. The trailing parenthetical is slightly clunky but earns its place by enumerating the zone values.

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 zero-parameter read-only status call this is close to adequate, and the description compensates for the absent output schema by listing what comes back. It falls short on undefined terms ("OCCE") and on the semantics of the RED/YELLOW/GREEN zones, which an agent would need in order to act on the result.

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 and the schema is fully covered, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-level meaning is missing.

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 uses a concrete verb ("Check") and enumerates three specific resources: session token usage, cumulative savings from OCCE, and the free-model attention health zone. That is far more specific than the bare tool name. It loses a point because "OCCE" is unexplained jargon and the description does not position the tool against any sibling (code_skeleton, smart_exec, etc.), though those siblings are clearly unrelated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no alternatives named. Usage is only weakly implied by the word "Check" (a monitoring/inspection call). An agent can guess this is a status check, but nothing tells it when monitoring is warranted or when to call this instead of other tools.

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