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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the authority_secret is returned only once (non-retrievable) and that per-member bonds are 10-25% of monthly shared-infra value, but it says nothing about side effects, reversibility, or required permissions for what is clearly a mutating, high-consequence operation.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and the most important return-value caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the jargon makes it heavier than it needs to be.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, one sentence is inadequate. The members array shape and the meaning/constraints of authority are not sufficiently covered for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for authority (registered sacrificing authority) and monthly_shared_infra_value_cents (basis for bond sizing), but leaves the name and especially the members array structure completely unexplained.

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 and resource: 'Create a fleet'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from fleet_status and rotate_authority, but the phrasing 'registered sacrificing authority' and 'per-member bonds' is opaque jargon that obscures what is actually being enrolled.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus fleet_status or rotate_authority, nor any prerequisites (such as authority registration). The only usage-relevant cue, that the authority_secret is returned once, is a caveat rather than routing guidance.

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