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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that the entry is recorded in the caller's log immediately and only becomes a sealed matching pair after the other company accepts. It also discloses the organization API key requirement, the counterparty prerequisite, and the on-chain Base sealing behavior.

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 front-loaded with the action and resource, then explains the two-sided lifecycle and prerequisites without filler. Every sentence contributes useful context for selecting and understanding the tool.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, prerequisites, and sealing behavior well. It could say more about the immediate return value or offer state after creation, but the core operational context is present.

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 documents each parameter. The description adds context about the overall handshake but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Start a Privi Handshake." It explains that this is a two-sided record of a dealing and gives concrete examples such as payment, data transfer, delivery, and agreement. This distinguishes it from ledger_record_action and from the accept/reject/verify handshake siblings.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: use it to start a two-sided record with another company's agent, and the counterparty must also use Privi Ledger. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as ledger_record_action for unilateral records or ledger_handshake_accept for the responding side, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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