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

With no annotations, the burden is on the description, and it does add useful facts: this is a proposal only, not a completed agreement, requires a 'key' credential, and is free. However it omits side effects on state, idempotency, and what the counterparty sees or must do next.

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?

It is short and packs credential/cost/source metadata efficiently, but the opening sentence is a quotation that fronts the text awkwardly and does not read as the primary purpose. Structure is serviceable but not cleanly front-loaded.

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 3-parameter tool with a nested object, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only the workflow concept. It leaves inputs, the counterparty structure, and any return/acknowledgement behavior unexplained, so an agent cannot fully specify a call from it.

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 0% and the description never mentions dealingHash, counterparty, or dealingSummary. The nested counterparty object (handle, serviceUrl) and the 64-hex dealingHash pattern are entirely undocumented outside the raw schema, so the description does little to compensate.

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 states a specific verb (records/proposes) and resource (a submission / proposed agreement), and explicitly says 'proposing it alone does not complete the agreement,' which distinguishes it from accept_submission. The opening quoted sentence frames the intent but reads as an example rather than a clean purpose statement.

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 implies the two-step flow (propose now, counterpart accepts later) and gives credential and cost context, but never states explicit preconditions or names accept_submission as the required follow-up. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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