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

Annotations only declare the non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile; the description adds real context beyond them, namely the conditional side effect of opening distribution, the named-approver authorization constraint, and the consent requirement for ten_* cases. The explicit negatives (does not close, sign, or wire) usefully bound the mutation's blast radius. It does not say whether binding is reversible or what an already-bound buyer produces, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, action front-loaded, no filler. The telegraphic style ('ten_*', 'confirmed true') trades some readability for density but every clause carries information.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, authorization, and exclusions but omits what the tool returns and the meaning of the ranking parameter, which affects the binding outcome. It is adequate for choosing the tool but not for predicting its result.

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% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only partially delivers: 'confirmed true' maps to the confirmed flag and 'funding buyer' hints at buyerId. Nothing explains the ranking enum (pari_passu vs first_loss) or the role of caseId, which is the material gap for a mutation whose outcome depends on ranking.

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 gives a specific verb phrase ('hash-bind a funding buyer') and states that distribution may be opened first, so an agent can tell it is a binding/mutation step rather than a listing or signing step. However the core terms ('hash-bind', 'open distribution', 'ten_*') are unexplained domain jargon, so a reader cannot confidently describe what the operation actually does from the text alone.

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?

'after confirmed true' supplies a clear invocation precondition, and 'Named approver only' constrains who may call it. 'ten_* still needs live share consent' points to an alternative path and 'Does not close, sign, or wire' implicitly routes those needs to siblings such as sign_funding_batch and close_case_to_loan. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is not a full when/when-not map.

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