noticer_commercial_account

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

With annotations already declaring readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the description still adds real value: it discloses that no charge is incurred, that preparation reserves no allowance, that the finalized order entitlement is authoritative, and that no payment or credential is returned. The entitlement wording is slightly abstract but materially informs behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, and each following sentence adds a distinct fact (cost, sequencing, authority of entitlement). The phrasing 'Preparation reserves no allowance' is a little opaque, costing some crispness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers cost, sequencing, and credential behavior for a zero-param read. What an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the default baseline applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 verb and resource — read how many free checks remain — and situates it relative to the sibling prepare-a-public-JSON-check flow, so an agent can tell it is a quota/eligibility read rather than an execution step.

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 this to understand eligibility before preparing a public JSON check' plus the 'After enrollment' precondition gives clear when-to-use guidance and ordering against noticer_prepare_receipt. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use cases or naming other siblings such as receipt_status.

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