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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important behaviors: the return (8-character user_code + verification URL) and that approval is a human passkey step, which implies the call is non-terminal. It omits whether the request expires, what happens when approval is denied, and that it creates a pending grant that must be polled — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the immediate return value, then the sandbox caveat. The sandbox warning takes two short sentences for one point, minor redundancy, but nothing is padding at the sentence level.

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 six-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 17% schema coverage, the description should explain the remaining parameters and the next step in the approval flow. It leaves the caller without enough to fill in or follow up on the request.

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 only 17% — just the 'service' parameter is documented, with examples like car_insurance. The description adds nothing about fields, purpose, reusable, jurisdiction, or expires_in_days, leaving five of six parameters unspecified in both structured fields and prose.

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 ('Request a scoped data grant for an agent'), which is materially different from the revoke/status/poll siblings. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so an agent must infer the relationship to moltbound_approval_request and moltbound_consent_link.

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?

The description gives a real usage constraint ('SANDBOX: use fictitious data only') but no tool-selection guidance: it never says when to choose this over moltbound_approval_request or that moltbound_poll_grant / moltbound_grant_status are the follow-up steps. Usage context is implied by the mention of human passkey approval, not stated.

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