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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It explains that the tool opens a handshake, does not apply the policy, returns a confirmation URL, and requires polling for completion. This aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false) without contradiction, and gives the agent a clear model of the tool's stateful side effects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage context and next-step guidance. Every sentence contributes unique information with no wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a two-step handshake flow) and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers the essential context: when to trigger it, what it does not do, what it returns, and how to proceed. It is complete for the agent to correctly invoke and use the tool in the broader workflow.

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 0%, and the description provides no details about the parameters (wallet_address, policies, caller_id). It does not explain what 'policies' should contain, how to structure the request, or the role of caller_id. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, making parameter usage ambiguous.

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 action: 'Open the browser-confirmation handshake to loosen a Lane 2 wallet's policy.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like poll_wallet_policy_loosening and set_wallet_policy by explaining it initiates a handshake rather than applying the policy.

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 explicit when-to-use context: 'Call this when set_wallet_policy refuses a change with BROWSER_CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('Does NOT apply the policy') and names the follow-up action ('Poll with poll_wallet_policy_loosening(device_code)'), providing clear usage boundaries and alternatives.

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