Standing-offer envelopes: offline agent deals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Accept" implies a state-changing operation, but there is no mention of side effects, permissions, irreversibility, or what accepting actually commits the caller to — the "signed receipt" hint implies an acknowledgement flow but is never explained.

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 short sentence with the key identifier front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects missing information rather than disciplined compression.

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 zero-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the effect of accepting and how it differs from deposit_envelope. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to predict outcomes or choose between siblings.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical at least tells the caller what kind of envelope is being handled.

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 verb ("accept") and resource ("envelope") plus a parenthetical naming the payload kinds (bulletin-order, signed receipt). However, it doesn't distinguish "accept" from the sibling deposit_envelope, so an agent can't tell which operation to pick from the name and description alone.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus deposit_envelope or envelope_status, and no preconditions or exclusions are given. The parenthetical hints at the content type but provides no routing guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. 'Deposit' implies a write/mutation, but nothing is said about authorization, idempotency, whether depositing is reversible, what state change the standing offer enters, or what the caller receives back.

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?

It is a single short noun-phrase fragment with no waste, which is good, but it reads as a title rather than a front-loaded explanation. There is no secondary clause to orient the agent.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a zero-parameter schema, the description is the only source of context and it explains none of the lifecycle: what a standing-offer envelope is, what depositing does to it, or how it relates to accept_envelope and envelope_status. Inadequate for a state-changing tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for in the schema. It is still slightly odd that a 'deposit' requires no input at all, and the description does not address how the envelope is supplied.

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 ('Deposit') and a specific resource ('signed standing-offer envelope'), so the basic action is identifiable. It does not distinguish the action from siblings like accept_envelope, and 'deposit' vs 'accept' remains ambiguous for an agent choosing between them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. must the envelope be signed first?), and no mention of the alternative accept_envelope or envelope_status. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely on its own.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned attributes (nonce, wake count, holds), effectively compensating for the missing output schema, and 'status' implies a read-only probe. It does not state that it is side-effect free or whether it mutates wake count by being observed.

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?

Very short with the resource front-loaded, but it is a comma-separated fragment rather than a sentence, which leaves interpretation work on the agent. Brevity here edges into under-specification.

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 zero-param read tool without an output schema, listing the fields is the right instinct and covers the return shape. However, terms like 'wake count' and 'holds' are unexplained, and the agent learns nothing about identity or scope of the envelope being queried.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline is 4. The schema is an empty object and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 identifies the resource (envelope status) and enumerates the fields surfaced, but it is a noun fragment with no verb, so it never states that it retrieves/reads status. It is distinguishable from accept_envelope and deposit_envelope only by inference from the field list.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the siblings; the agent must infer that checking state precedes accept/deposit. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no explicit alternative routing.

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