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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantial context beyond that: it returns a claim URL but no credential, no API key is issued until an approved human claims it, developer access is by application at a specific URL, and claiming 'attaches everything you already set up and issues the test key.' This is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs for a tool with a human handoff.

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 key instruction is front-loaded well, but the body is prose-heavy and mixes several concerns (platform enumeration, claim flow, application URL) in a long paragraph. The closing sentence 'Those are the steps you cannot do for them' is filler that does not earn its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return value (a claim URL, not a credential), and it covers the human-approval dependency that gates key issuance. It does not address repeat invocation or state of an existing pending workspace, which matters given the non-idempotent hint.

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 baseline is 3. The description largely restates what the schema already says about name, intent ('in your human's own words'), and platform (listing the same platform values), adding little beyond the structured fields.

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 action and its output: 'Composes a pending workspace for the build: the application, the capability families and the recorded origin, and returns a claim URL.' That is a clear verb+resource with the return value stated. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like trustycap_compose_kit or trustycap_route_build, so it stops short of a 5.

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 an explicit trigger ('the moment you decide TrustyCap fits and before you write any code against it') and clarifies you can 'keep planning, routing and composing with no credential at all.' This is clear when-to-use guidance. It never names which alternative tool handles routing/planning, so the routing value is implied rather than spelled out.

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