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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a code is handed to the human and that the approval is passkey-based and fictional-only, but says nothing about code lifetime, what state changes on approval, what to do afterward (poll_grant?), or required permissions.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The sandbox warning is short and relevant.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, and the description omits the result shape (presumably a code/URL) and the downstream step for checking approval. For a 4-parameter linking tool in a multi-step flow, that leaves the agent guessing about next actions.

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 only 25% — only session_token is documented. The description mentions no semantics for max_price, service_id, or jurisdiction, so three of four parameters remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 action (issue a linking code) and its purpose (human passkey approval of a purchase), which is clear enough to distinguish from a plain quote or status tool. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like moltbound_approval_request or moltbound_request_grant, leaving overlap ambiguity.

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 moltbound_approval_request, moltbound_request_grant, or moltbound_human_sim_approve, nor any prerequisites beyond the implicit session_token. The sandbox note is a safety constraint, not usage routing.

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