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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses cross-organization side effects: recording the same terms in your log, confirming in the other company's log, and sealing the matched pair on chain. It also states an auth requirement. It does not cover failure behavior or result shape, but annotations already declare the mutation and idempotency profile.

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 action is front-loaded, followed by the side effects, auth requirement, and prerequisite in compact sentences. Every sentence adds useful information with no 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 complex mutation that spans local logs, another organization's log, and on-chain sealing, the description covers the side effects and prerequisite well. It does not describe the return value or failure states, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 schema already explains handshake_id, stream_id, and actor. The description adds context about accepting terms addressed to your organization but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Accept a handshake') and explains the resulting effects: recording terms in both logs and sealing the matched pair on chain. It also distinguishes the read-before-accept workflow by naming ledger_handshake_inbox.

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 prerequisite: read the terms first with ledger_handshake_inbox. It also states the organization API key requirement. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it versus siblings such as reject or verify, so it falls short of a full 5.

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