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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that this is a non-executing proposal, that it returns a proposalId requiring confirmation, and it names a specific error code and the account-type precondition that triggers it. It does not cover permission/ownership requirements or what happens to any existing allowance when a max approval is proposed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then required next step, then the failure caveat. The colon-joined clause at the end is slightly dense, but no sentence is filler.

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 3-parameter proposal tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the returned handle, the mandatory confirmation step, and the main precondition failure. An agent could invoke it correctly; only the fallback path for passkey accounts remains unspecified.

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 67%, and the description compensates for the undescribed 'flow' enum by explaining both values in domain terms (CoW spender vs Fusion/bridge spender) and by tying fusion_bridge to the OWNER_PASSKEY_REQUIRED failure. fromWalletId and tokenAddress add nothing beyond the schema, but they are already documented there.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Propose max ERC-20 approval') and scopes it to 'CoW or Fusion spenders', which separates it cleanly from propose_swap and propose_bridge siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with related token-grant tools like list_token_spender_grants or check_trade_allowance, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 a clear mandatory follow-up ('call confirm_proposal before swap/bridge') and a concrete when-not rule: API keys on a passkey account cannot approve the Fusion spender, and fusion_bridge will return OWNER_PASSKEY_REQUIRED. Missing is what an agent should do instead in that case (no alternative tool is named).

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