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

The description adds state-transition behavior (DRAFT to AGREED only after both parties sign), mode-dependent behavior, and an explicit test-environment warning (mock ledger, tUSDC, no real funds). These go well beyond the annotations and contain no contradiction.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the primary action and endpoint, then cover wallet modes and the test-money caveat. No filler; each sentence adds distinct decision-relevant 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?

With no output schema, the description could be more explicit about the success response shape, but it covers the endpoint, signature requirements, wallet modes, and state transition. This leaves only a minor gap.

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 already documents each parameter well, but the description adds workflow-level meaning: address triggers payload-return mode, wallet_handle relates to the session wallet, and the EIP-712 signature covers (job_id, contract_hash). This connects the parameters to a multi-step signing flow.

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 action ('Counter-sign a DRAFT job as the other party'), names the endpoint and signature scheme, and states the resulting state transition to AGREED. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like afg_post_job or afg_prepare_signed_request.

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?

It gives concrete mode guidance: session wallet is fully automatic, own-wallet mode starts by calling with address to obtain the typed data, and it emphasizes TEST MONEY ONLY. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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