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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, particularly that a false answer is recorded immediately and produces STOP only when CONFIRM_TARGET is explicitly sent. This state-dependent behavior is not derivable from readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint alone.

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-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence delivers an important behavioral consequence. The first sentence is a long list of options, but it remains efficient and within reasonable 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?

Given 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It communicates high-level dialogue actions but leaves required identifiers, token semantics, and the structure of evidence-related payloads unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only partially explains the response options (CONFIRM_TARGET, CORRECT, ABORT, PROVIDE_EVIDENCE). It does not explain the required preflight_id and confirmation_token, nor the nested objects corrections, confirmations, artifacts, or acknowledged_evidence_commitment.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: continuing a live RWA dialogue, and enumerates the possible actions within it. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'start' and 'capabilities' tools through the word 'continue' and 'live', though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 phrase 'Continue a live RWA dialogue' provides clear context for when this tool applies: only when a dialogue already exists and is ongoing. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, but the 'live dialogue' context effectively separates it from start/capabilities tools.

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