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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: rows are shown whole, private rows must never be ticked, the confirmation is not a contract, and only the person's own Send action transmits anything. This gives the agent the operational and safety context needed to avoid misuse.

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 front-loaded with the most important constraint ('DRAFT ONLY') and every sentence adds a meaningful behavioral or parameter detail. Despite its density, it stays focused and earns its length given the tool's complexity.

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?

It covers the draft-only nature, the human send step, private-row restrictions, and key parameter meanings, while the output schema handles return format details. The main remaining gap is the lack of an explicit explanation of counterparty_email and what exactly the prepared draft returns or stores.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and explains content_hash, change_rows, shared_rows, and title in useful operational terms. It does not explicitly define counterparty_email, though the surrounding text makes the counterparty role clear.

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 states a specific verb and object: it prepares a request asking a counterparty to confirm a change. The opening 'DRAFT ONLY' sentence immediately distinguishes this from any tool that sends or records the request.

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?

It clearly establishes the use case: preparing a confirmation draft for a sealed or sealing brief, with the human sending it later from their own STEMPA account. It does not explicitly compare this tool with sibling alternatives, but the exclusions ('sends nothing, emails nobody, records nothing') provide strong usage boundaries.

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