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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose key behavior: it creates a bilateral decision record and waits for counterparty acceptance, and it emphasizes that agreement is required before anchoring the boundary. It could add failure and timeout behavior, but the main side effects are more transparent than typical in low-annotation tools.

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 tightly written with the 'when to use' trigger front-loaded, followed by illustrative use cases and a clear mechanism sentence. There is no filler or redundancy; all three sentences earn their place.

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 21-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the most important context: the bilateral requirement, the waiting behavior, and likely use cases. It could say a little more about what happens after acceptance or on failure, but the essential operational context is present and coherent.

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%, so the input schema already explains most parameters. The description adds use-case context but does not need to restate parameter details. This meets the baseline expected when the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: propose a bilateral agreement, create a DD with declaration_mode 'bilateral', and wait for counterparty acceptance. It also identifies concrete use cases like payment splits and task delegation, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools such as create_decision or confirm_decision.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: when two agents need to fix a shared boundary and both must agree. It gives concrete examples of appropriate scenarios. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to an alternative sibling tool, but the trigger condition is still clear and actionable.

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