Live tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses what is actually returned (running + last-minute ended calls, numbers only, per-kind token counts, tokens per second) and that the data is continuously changing, which is real behavioral context. It omits polling/refresh cadence and whether the window is a snapshot at call time.

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?

Three sentences of reasonable length, with the usage trigger and the UI-rendering note in sensible positions. However, the first sentence is a dense run-on with an awkward nested parenthetical enumerating call purposes, which slows comprehension of what should be the primary statement.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape and does so thoroughly: model, purpose, running time, token kinds, tokens per second. For a zero-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient; only a note on refresh cadence or snapshot semantics is missing.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly frames this as an unfiltered, no-argument snapshot rather than implying any hidden filtering options.

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 concrete resource and scope: model calls currently running plus those that ended in the last minute, returned 'as numbers only' with model, purpose, duration and token breakdown. That is a specific, identifiable retrieval. It stops short of a 5 because the opening phrasing ('The model calls Leanfare is running right now') is grammatically tangled and it never names a sibling such as spend, report or plan_status to contrast against.

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?

It gives explicit triggers: 'Use it when the user asks what Leanfare is doing now, or to watch a plan's parts run.' That covers the main invocation contexts clearly. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so an agent gets positive guidance but no help deciding between this and spend/report/plan_status.

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