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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds useful semantics such as escrow for bounty_create and double-spend protection rationale for rotate/merge. It does not disclose what happens to the parent token on split, whether rotate invalidates old tokens, or what mint requires beyond a confirmed txHash.

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?

One sentence front-loads the resource, which is good, but it becomes a long run-on clause chain. The parenthetical list of verification modes (`sha256`, `descriptor_derive`, `address_script`, `psbt_feerate`, `json_schema`) merely repeats the enum already present in the schema.

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 an 11-parameter, nested-object, multi-action tool with no output schema, the description gives a workable action map but omits what each action returns, the fee's effect on balances, and how verification_params is structured. Annotations carry only hints, so more behavioral detail would have been warranted.

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 every parameter including the `verification_params` object is already documented in structured form. The description maps some actions to their governing parameters but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (WorkSats bearer credits, `crd_...`) and enumerates concrete operations — balance, split, rotate, merge, mint, bounty_create, stats — so an agent knows exactly what the tool covers. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the task-oriented siblings (worksats_get_task, worksats_solve_task), though the credit-vs-task split is implied by the action 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?

Each action is given context for when it applies: rotate/merge exist 'so the sender cannot double-spend', mint is for 'L402 or x402 Base USDC', bounty_create is 'to escrow credits for a verifiable task'. What's missing is explicit routing versus siblings or when not to use a given action.

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