Get spending space

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the shape of the payload (balance, type, linked card) and says nothing about auth scope, error behavior, or whether the linked card may be absent.

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 zero filler, and the returned fields are parenthesised after the core action. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for the routing context an agent would benefit from.

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 simple two-parameter getter with full annotation coverage, the description is adequate. However, with no output schema, the return contract rests on three parenthetical field names and omits nullability of the linked card, so it is minimally complete rather than fully so.

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%, with both spaceUid and the optional accountUid fully documented including the default-resolution rule, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 verb and resource ('Gets one spending space') and enumerates the salient returned fields (balance, type, linked card). It does not name or differentiate itself from the obvious sibling list_spaces, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one' signals single-record lookup versus the list_spaces sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of prerequisites. An agent must infer the retrieval-by-UID workflow.

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