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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying 'commit-reveal majority, final' – indicating irreversibility – and warning that it uses a mock ledger and test tokens (tUSDC) with no real funds. This is important context beyond the 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 entire description is a single, dense sentence that packs the endpoint, the flow, the constraints, and the test-only warning without any redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause contributes value.

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 complex wallet modes and a multi-step signing flow, the schema covers the parameter semantics thoroughly. The description provides the essential high-level context (finality, test environment, one-time use). It lacks an explicit statement of the return value, but since there is no output schema and the schema already explains the signing payload behavior, the description is nearly complete.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including details on the BYO-wallet mode and the behavior when signed_request is omitted. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema carries the burden.

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's purpose: the one appeal to an AI panel after a mediator ruling. It includes the exact endpoint and states the key constraints (either party, once, final). This differentiates it from siblings like afg_dispute or afg_submit by its unique role in the workflow.

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 a clear trigger condition ('after a mediator ruling') and usage constraints ('Either party, once', 'TEST MONEY ONLY'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the phrase 'the one appeal' implies uniqueness, and the context makes the appropriate usage evident.

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