Budget status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the trailing "Read-only" adds nothing. However, the description discloses real behavioral substance beyond annotations: the reconciliation check telling the agent whether live budget counters match a fresh ledger replay, which signals the tool doubles as a consistency diagnostic.

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 field inventory, usage trigger, and safety note are packed into two short sentences with the scope front-loaded. The trailing "Read-only" is the one redundant clause since readOnlyHint already conveys it, costing a bit of tightness.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating the reported quantities and their unit convention. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it does not specify types or formats for the individual counts.

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 does not need to document inputs, and it usefully clarifies the output unit convention (integer micro-units of the ledger currency) even though that belongs to the return value rather than a parameter.

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?

States a specific resource (per-mandate spend from the ledger) and enumerates exactly what is reported: settled/reserved amounts, intent counts, refusal count, and a counter-vs-replay consistency check. This is clearly distinct from write-oriented siblings like mandare_issue_mandate or mandare_kill without needing to open any schema.

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?

"Use before starting expensive work" gives a concrete trigger for invoking the tool, which is genuine guidance rather than a restatement. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it (e.g., how it relates to mandare_gateway_health), so it is clear context without full when/when-not routing.

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