grok_agent_economy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only, no secrets,' which discloses both the safety profile and a key boundary. 'Call once' also signals that repeated calls are unnecessary and possibly wasteful. This is solid transparency for a zero-parameter informational tool.

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 description is three short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and packs in usage, safety, and scope without filler. Every clause earns its place, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for selection and invocation: purpose, usage, safety, and what topics it covers. It falls just short of full completeness because it does not explicitly state the expected output format, though the phrase 'playbook' strongly implies instructional content.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter-level semantics are not applicable. Per the calibration guidance, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details that do not exist.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a token-economy playbook for host agents and enumerates the specific guidance it provides: when to consult vs execute, polling compact receipts, and VPS offload tips. This makes the purpose readily understandable and distinguishes it from the action-oriented sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'display'.

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?

The description gives concrete usage guidance: 'Call once; prefer over re-planning.' It also frames the tool as the source for deciding between consulting and executing, which implies when it should be used relative to those sibling tools. It could be stronger by naming explicit alternatives, but the context is clear.

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