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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description goes well beyond by disclosing validation rules (base58 32-byte decode, on-chain existence, DelegationGrant decode, not revoked/expired, delegate match), the distinct INVALID_PARAMS failure behavior, and the additive/tightening semantics. This is rich, non-contradictory behavioral 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered validation and semantics. Dense but each clause carries information; minor parenthetical asides add slight length without harm.

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?

A mutation tool with annotations and an output schema (so return values need not be explained). The description covers validation, enforcement semantics, and permission-mode behavior completely. Only the undocumented caller_id parameter leaves a small gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains grant_pda (format, decode, lifecycle checks) and its relationship to wallet_address (delegate match), covering the two required params well. caller_id is left undocumented, so it does not fully close the gap.

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 ('Opt a wallet into') and resource ('AGNTA DelegationGrant spend/scope cap'), with a clarifying scope ('non-custodial control plane'). An agent can distinguish this from clear_agnta_grant and set_wallet_policy by the explicit 'adds an ADDITIONAL cap enforced alongside (never replacing) WalletPolicy'.

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?

Gives clear context for when it applies ('every subsequent value-bearing call for this wallet', 'applies directly for every wallet, Lane 2 included') and its permission-mode gating ('allowed in every permission_mode, observe included'). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives like clear_agnta_grant or set_wallet_policy as explicit choices, so no exclusions/routing.

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