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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, but the description adds valuable compute-mode behavior (auto/server/browser, gpu delegation), transient processing with no storage/logging, synthetic input requirement, and artifact export with execution_hash. These details go well beyond annotations and help an agent understand runtime side effects without contradicting them.

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 bloated with redundant phrases ('OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_control). Deterministic OpenChainGraph compute node.') and includes an external URL and FV-status JSON path that are irrelevant to invocation. The core purpose is buried rather than 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description only vaguely says it 'Exports an AP2 artifact with execution_hash' without explaining the artifact's contents or the decision function. It defers policy_parameters field names to the manifest rather than describing the core computation, leaving a significant gap for a complex builder tool.

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 100% and the schema already documents compute, parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids, and policy_parameters. The description reinforces compute modes but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 calls it an 'OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_control)' and repeats the title, but never states what a 'Mastercard Agentic Token Scope' is or what building one entails. No concrete verb+resource explanation distinguishes it from sibling builders like build_ap2_cartmandate_hashchain.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites. The description never says when an agent should call this vs. other AP2/token builders in the sibling list.

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