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

The annotation only declares readOnlyHint: false, which implies a write. The description goes beyond that by explicitly stating 'WRITES: this call changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly.' It also clarifies the operation is authorization, not payment or delivery, and discloses the need for dual signatures. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence contributes essential information: purpose, scoping, preimage derivation, signature requirements, and the write warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details the mechanics. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 13 parameters and zero output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers the operational context (authorization vs payment), cryptographic requirements, exact preimage format, and a caution about repeatability. It leaves nothing critical unexplained for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With schema coverage at just 8%, the description carries the burden of parameter explanation. It thoroughly explains the preimage composition, the required signatures (EIP-191 and Ed25519), which token/address to use, and the condition for omitting the wallet signature. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Record') and a precise resource ('one scoped payout authorization for a docket row or a listing row'), with explicit sub-cases for listing rows (worker vs verifier price). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like payout_wallet, payouts, and payout_receipt.

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 detailed, actionable guidance: it mandates both signatures, tells the agent to fetch the preimage from signing_bytes rather than assembling it manually, specifies the exact preimage format, and warns that this is authorization, not payment or delivery. It also notes when the wallet signature can be omitted. This is explicit usage guidance with clear constraints.

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