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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result is agentpay-signed, enumerates the summarized activity, notes it is 'Free', and that sub binding affects bond discount. It omits auth requirements (key/Bearer interplay), whether the signature is revocable, and what the signed output actually is.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the parameter caveat and cost. No filler; every clause earns its 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return shape, but it never says what a signed attestation looks like or how auth is handled. It covers what is summarized well but leaves the output and auth story incomplete for a signing 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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying sub to a business consequence ('required for bond discount') and framing days as a 'window'. key and days remain schema-only, so it does not fully elaborate every parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('sign a summary') and resource (this wallet's settled activity), and enumerates the included dimensions (payments, services/payees, spend, refunds, bounty earnings), which no sibling like get_receipt or list_transactions does. An agent can tell this is a signed aggregate attestation, distinct from a raw receipt or transaction list.

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 gives one conditional rule — pass sub to bind to a bounty claim, required for bond discount — which is useful usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_receipt or list_transactions, nor any exclusions, so the guidance is only partial and implied.

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