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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds a critical behavioral boundary: it never authorizes or executes an action. It also discloses that a side-effecting 'dialogue' starts and that a private confirmation token is created, which is useful given readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the operation, return value, and safety boundary are each given one focused sentence. The most important scoping information is 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?

The tool is complex (10 parameters, a nested policy, no output schema) but the description does not explain the purpose of most parameters, how the confirmation token should be used, or how this connects to the continuation tool. It provides only a high-level skeleton, which is not enough for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only clarifies action and network. Seven required parameters such as idempotency_key, token_contract, receiving_wallet, amount_decimal, payment_asset, and the nested policy object are left to be inferred from names and patterns.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Start') plus a clear resource ('live RWA evidence dialogue') and narrows the scope to Ethereum/Base BUY, TRANSFER, or ACCEPT actions. The closing safety statement and the 'Start' wording distinguish it from the preflight_capabilities and preflight_continue siblings.

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 is the initiating step of a dialogue and that a token is produced for later use, but it never explicitly says to use preflight_capabilities first or preflight_continue after obtaining the token. No alternative tools or exclusion conditions are named.

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