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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the capability is short-lived, and the call is a two-phase challenge-then-signature flow requiring a payer signature. The main missing piece is that the description's 'mint' framing sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint without explanation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the two-step procedure. No filler.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be described, and the two-phase flow is stated. But for a tool whose entire complexity lives in the authorization payload, the description leaves the agent without the parameter-level detail needed to complete the second call correctly.

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 schema is a nested authorization object with nine required fields. The description only alludes to 'the payer signature' and never explains orderHandle or how the authorization fields (nonce, requestHash, validBefore, etc.) relate to the challenge returned by the first call.

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 gives a specific verb ('Mint') and resource ('short-lived capability for repeated status and artifact reads'), which clearly distinguishes it from the direct-read siblings daski_get_order_status and daski_get_order_artifact. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings to steer selection.

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?

It gives clear procedural context: call once for a sign-ready grant-read challenge, then retry with the payer signature. That is real when-to-use guidance, though it stops short of stating when to prefer this over one-shot status/artifact reads.

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