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

Beyond the annotation booleans, the description explains that the tool is hosted-safe, never receives keypair bytes, produces unsigned transactions that must be finalized locally, and requires signer policy/RPC/profile context. This is substantive behavioral disclosure for a paid builder tool.

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 longer than average but uses labeled sections (Intent, Pricing, Routing, Signer boundary) and front-loads the core purpose. Some generic SAP MCP context is repeated from the schema, but every sentence carries some operational guidance.

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 two-parameter builder with an output schema, the description covers pricing, routing, signer requirements, local finalization, and action semantics. Nothing critical is missing 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the action enum by explaining close_agent reclaims rent and migrate_pricing_menu is a one-time backfill, and confirms ownerWallet is the sole local signer. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 names a specific verb ('build'), resources ('agent lifecycle actions'), and enumerates exactly which actions are included, including contextual notes like 'reclaims rent' and 'one-time backfill'. This clearly distinguishes it as an unsigned transaction builder rather than the direct execution tools elsewhere in the sibling list.

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 execution guidance: it is a paid hosted builder, requires estimating cost first, routing via sap_estimate_tool_cost/sap_payments_call_paid_tool if needed, and finalizing locally. It does not explicitly contrast with direct lifecycle action tools like sap_deactivate_agent, but the builder intent and signer boundary imply when it should be used.

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