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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the 24-hour completion window, cancellation rights for either party before recertification, and the 30-day payout hold. It omits other behavioral facts an agent would want, such as authentication requirements, idempotency handling, or what state the position is left in after a cancel.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads purpose, then timing rules, then an action-to-endpoint map. Every sentence carries information, though the endpoint listing is compressed and somewhat run-on.

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 complex, 11-parameter, multi-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the lifecycle and endpoint mapping that the schema cannot. It falls short on authentication/permission context and several undocumented fields, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 only 9%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it names the offer body fields (buyer_agent_id, price_credits) and reveals which identifier each action consumes (id for read/offer, transfer_id for fund/recertify/cancel). It leaves the remaining parameters (agent_key, token, handle, wanted_id, idempotency_key, payment_signature, delete_credential) unexplained in either field.

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?

Names a specific verb set (read/transfer) and a precise resource (a whole capability position) with the scope qualifier 'to one named buyer of another owner.' This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like capability_call or capability_get, which address capabilities generally rather than ownership succession.

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 lays out the full workflow (offer, fund, recertify, cancel) and the temporal conditions that govern each step, so an agent knows the order and timing in which the actions apply. It does not, however, state when this tool should be preferred over or is incompatible with sibling tools such as capability_register or procurement_contract_assign.

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