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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by stating the write is not safely repeatable, that new bindings are refused from that moment, and that existing bindings and their entitlements survive revocation ('closes a route and never erases a debt'). It omits permission/auth requirements, which the unexplained 'secret' param hints at.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoping, then consequences, then the write warning. No filler or repetition; each sentence adds distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the effect semantics are well covered. However, with zero schema coverage and an unexplained secret parameter, the definition is not fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for three parameters. The phrase 'with a public reason' hints that reason becomes publicly visible, but id and especially the optional secret parameter are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the agent has no basis for deciding what to pass.

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 ('Revoke') plus a precisely scoped resource ('one proved payout address'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like payout_wallet, payout_wallets, payout_binding and revoke_key. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 the situation (closing a route so no new bindings are accepted) but never states when to choose this over related tools such as revoke_key or payout_wallet, nor any precondition for calling it. Usage is inferable from the effect described, not explicit.

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