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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context: consent-only scope, explicit non-actions, and a note that FIT creates internal opportunities requiring existing review. However, the phrase 'creates internal opportunities' is ambiguous against readOnlyHint=true and is not clarified.

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 short and has no filler, which is good, but the first sentence is opaque and the third sentence is cryptic. It is concise without being clear or effectively front-loaded with a recognizable purpose.

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, so the description should explain what discovery returns and how the handshake works. Instead, undefined terms ('FX', 'FIT') and an undocumented required parameter leave the agent without enough context to predict the tool's results or proper use.

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 0% and the description never explains intent_id: what it identifies, how to obtain it, or what format is expected. With only one required parameter, the gap is smaller, but an agent still has to guess the meaning and source of the required value.

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 restates the tool name with jargon: 'Consent-only FX network discovery/handshake' does not specify what discovery actually does or returns. 'FX', 'handshake', and 'FIT' are undefined, and the tool is not clearly distinguished from list_network_intents or other siblings. The stated exclusions describe limits, not the core action.

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 negative constraints ('No identity, contact, terms, documents or external outreach') but no positive guidance on when to call this versus siblings like list_network_intents or initiate_network_request. 'FIT creates internal opportunities requiring existing review' hints at a precondition but is too cryptic to act on.

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