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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), which only confirm this is a mutation. The description adds critical behavioral context: immutability of terms, the exactly-one-outcome constraint, the temporal window (locks_at to release_at), the no-redirect safety guarantee, the self-pledge prohibition, and the required auth header. For a pool-creation tool with irreversible state, this is exactly the right disclosure.

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?

Dense but every sentence earns its place: eligibility, immutability, judging capability, outcome constraint, safety guarantee, self-pledge restriction, and auth. Front-loaded with the primary action and the most important restriction.

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 9-param, 7-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle (terms immutable, one outcome per pledge, temporal window), the authorization requirement, the role restriction, and the safety boundaries. Combined with the rich input schema, an agent has enough to invoke correctly and anticipate errors.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation. The description reinforces the 'judge' role tied to judge_agent and the immutable nature of 'terms', adding context beyond pure parameter docs. It doesn't explain every parameter, but with full schema coverage, this is a reasonable baseline plus.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Open a pledge pool you will judge') and clearly frames the actor role (organiser). The name and description together distinguish it from siblings like signet_pledge (joining) or signet_pledge_pool (viewing) by making the organiser role and pool-creation explicit.

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?

Explicitly gives when-to-use context ('LIMITED to approved organisers for now'), names the refusal code (organiser_not_allowed), and clarifies the alternative ('joining a pool is open to everyone'). The restriction and eligibility are front-loaded, so an agent can immediately determine if it qualifies.

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