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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds valuable flow context, especially that no funds move until submit_payment, but doesn't explain signing requirements, how authorize relates to submit, or what happens on retries. With annotations already carrying safety signals, this is adequate but not rich.

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 that front-load the action and then clarify the flow. Every clause earns its place by adding either purpose or usage context.

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 two required parameters, a full schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description is nearly complete for safe invocation and correct sequencing. It could be improved with explicit failure/retry guidance or more detail about the authorization semantics, but nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters' formats and meanings are documented in the schema. The description adds the concept of maximumTotalAuthorized and expiresAt, which are not parameter names in the schema, so it doesn't fully clarify the provided inputs. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource: attach the payer's EIP-712 signature to a quoted payment intent. It clearly positions the tool between quote_payment and submit_payment, so an agent can place it in the payment flow without inspecting siblings.

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 explains the prerequisite (a quoted payment intent from quote_payment) and the follow-up ('No funds move until submit_payment'), giving clear when-to-use context. It doesn't give explicit when-not or failure/retry decision rules, but the sequence guidance is strong.

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