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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly adds value by describing behaviors beyond safety: AUX gathers evidence, asks questions, accepts confirmations/corrections, refreshes sources, and returns signed statuses. The disclosure that PROCEED_WITH_CONFIRMATION is 'reserved but disabled' is useful state information not captured in annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. It is somewhat jargon-heavy, especially 'authoritative action-profile adapters,' and the first sentence packs many behaviors into a long colon-separated list, but overall it is still relatively efficient and earns its length.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool, the description covers the key operational facts: it exposes a live dialogue, mentions signed outcome states, and explains a reserved-but-disabled status. A remaining gap is that it does not describe the response structure or explicitly connect to the sibling start/continue tools, though the sibling list partially compensates.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's behavioral capabilities rather than parameters.

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 operation ('Discover the live machine-to-machine RWA evidence dialogue') and frames the tool as a capability-discovery endpoint rather than an execution step. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like aux_rwa_action_preflight_start or aux_rwa_action_preflight_continue, so differentiation rests mostly on the verb 'Discover' and the tool name.

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 implies this tool should be called when an agent needs to inspect the current preflight dialogue state and permitted outcomes, noting that it 'currently returns signed STOP, REVIEW, or ABORTED.' It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of start, continue, or evidence_evaluate, leaving usage guidance to inference rather than direct instruction.

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