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

The description is otherwise transparent about signing, ownership isolation, receipt limits, idempotency, and return shapes, but it directly contradicts the idempotentHint=false annotation by stating 'Idempotent: re-completing an already-terminal act returns ok with `already` and writes nothing.' This conflict makes the behavioral contract unreliable.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and uses line breaks to separate constraints, idempotency, settlement, and returns. The trailing example 'call federation_node_act_complete with arguments {}' is weak and arguably misleading because seven arguments are required, but it is a small flaw in an otherwise efficient description.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description documents return variants, error codes, idempotency behavior, ownership restrictions, and the settlement ordering. For an 8-parameter mutation tool, this is enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that result is a bounded ≤16KB receipt rather than a payload store, that outcome is exactly 'completed' or 'failed', and that the completion update is keyed by the authenticated node id so a node can only act on its own acts.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Report the outcome') and resource ('a brokered act your node drained'), and identifies the operation as the return leg of the brokered-act arc, distinguishing it from drain and report-in siblings. The title 'Complete a Brokered Act (Return Leg)' reinforces this without ambiguity.

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 scopes usage to acts a node has drained and to the node's own delivered acts, and explains settlement timing ('hub-side AFTER a reported completion'). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use the tool, but the timing and ownership constraints make the intended context unambiguous.

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