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

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: it does not clear the grant, returns a confirmation URL, and requires owner approval in their own browser (never in-chat). Annotations only indicate readOnly=false and openWorld=true, but the description adds crucial async and security context.

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 description is a single paragraph but information-dense with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action, then provides necessary context and next steps. Every sentence adds value, making it concise despite length.

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 tool that initiates an async handshake, the description fully covers the workflow: when to call, what it returns (confirmation URL), who approves, and how to poll. It includes all necessary context for an agent to use it correctly, and the presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return format.

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?

The schema has two parameters, wallet_address (required) and caller_id (optional). The description clarifies that wallet_address identifies the target wallet's grant cap, giving it semantic meaning. However, caller_id is not explained, though it's minor with a default. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates reasonably for wallet_address but not fully for caller_id, resulting in a slight deduction.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: opening a browser-confirmation handshake to clear a Lane 2 wallet's AGNTA grant cap. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `clear_agnta_grant` (which actually clears) and `poll_agnta_grant_clear` (which polls). The verb 'Open' and specific resource make it unambiguous.

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 states when to call: "Call this when clear_agnta_grant refuses with BROWSER_CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED." It also clarifies what it does NOT do and directs to polling with `poll_agnta_grant_clear(device_code)`, providing clear context and alternatives.

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