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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states 'Writes nothing', explains that sealing requires a wallet signature, and notes that the price is as it stands. This gives the agent concrete expectations about side effects and what the call will and will not do.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: the first states the overall purpose, the second enumerates return contents, and the third clarifies side effects. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 read-only query tool with two simple parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the essential information: what is returned, side-effect safety, and the price/eligibility context. It does not detail the expected format for did_or_handle or error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 'want' parameter is well documented in the schema, including that it records interest only and charges nothing. However, the required 'did_or_handle' parameter has no schema description and the tool description only partially clarifies it via phrases like 'for an agent' and 'Name who inherits your work'. With 50% schema coverage, more explicit parameter guidance was needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names a concrete resource: the terms of a TESTAMENTUM, including eligibility, next call, and price. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like verify_certificate or council_vote, which are about different actions.

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 makes clear this is the informational/preflight tool: it returns terms and eligibility and explicitly says it 'Writes nothing', while sealing requires a separate wallet signature. It does not name alternative tools for the sealing step, but the context makes the intended usage clear.

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