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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes, that value-moving results must be finalized locally when signing is required, and that this is a paid hosted flow requiring estimation first. These are meaningful behavioral details an agent needs before invoking the 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 purpose is front-loaded and the execution guidance is labeled and scannable. However, the description repeats the 'unsigned transaction builder' intent twice and includes generic SAP MCP boilerplate such as 'Direct synapse-sap-sdk wrapper served by this MCP,' which does little to help selection or invocation.

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?

The description covers the critical operational concerns for this paid unsigned builder: pricing, estimation, payment routing, prerequisites, and signer boundary. The output schema covers return shape, so the main gap is a small inconsistency where ownerWallet is described as the sole required signer while the schema marks no parameters as required.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage: callsServed as the number of calls to report and ownerWallet as the base58 public key and sole required signer. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opening sentence clearly identifies the tool as a hosted-safe unsigned builder for report_calls and explains that the agent owner wallet signs locally. This distinguishes it from direct execution or signing tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling builders like sap_build_agent_register_transaction or sap_build_agent_update_transaction.

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 explicit operational guidance: this is a paid builder, the agent should estimate cost via sap_estimate_tool_cost first, then pay/build, and finalize the unsigned transaction locally. It also provides the x402 fallback routing to sap_payments_call_paid_tool. It stops short of explicitly stating when to use this tool versus alternative report-call tools, but the invocation context is clear.

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