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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds one behavioral clue — 'always-on SqueezeOS x402 authority' — suggesting the call is always available and relies on some authority, but the meaning of that authority is left unexplained.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. The authority clause adds some useful context, though it is slightly jargon-heavy and could be clearer.

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, read-only status tool, the description is largely sufficient: the agent knows what to call and why. The lack of an output schema is not a major issue for a status report, though a bit more detail about what the status contains would improve completeness.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so parameter documentation is already complete. The description does not need to explain any fields, and no gap exists for it to compensate for.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('GhostKey status'), so the agent knows exactly what action this tool performs. It is also clearly distinct from sibling tools that cover catalog, policy, and quote, since status is a separate concern.

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 implies this is the tool to call when GhostKey status is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over siblings or when not to use it. The phrase 'always-on' hints at availability, but no alternative routing or exclusion criteria are stated.

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