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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: idempotency behavior (returns the existing purchase_id), binding to a specific quote and agent, a 15-minute expiry, and two named failure modes. The SANDBOX warning about fictitious data is a behavioral constraint an agent cannot infer elsewhere.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the precondition and the time limit, then pack idempotency and error semantics without padding. The SANDBOX warning is short and clearly demarcated.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers timing, idempotency, failure modes, and return value (purchase_id) well. The remaining gap is the undocumented origin of consent_request_id, which an agent would still need to trace through sibling tools.

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 50%: session_token has a schema description pointing at moltbound_start_session and moltbound_human_sim_verify, but consent_request_id is bare in both schema and description. The description adds conceptual context about what the approval is bound to (quote, agent) but never explains where consent_request_id comes from or how it maps to the approving flow.

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 ('complete the fictional purchase') plus the exact precondition (human approval) and the 15-minute window. It establishes that this is the terminal step after approval, which cleanly separates it from siblings like moltbound_approval_request or moltbound_human_sim_approve.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger ('after the human approved on Moltbound's website (or via moltbound_human_sim_approve)') and the alternative approval path. It also indirectly states when not to call, since misuse paths are enumerated with the exact error strings consent_used and consent_expired.

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