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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description reveals that the request is public and visibly unverified, that registration is not required, and that the result is a private signed receipt used for future matching. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that help an agent predict side effects and output.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return value. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 create-type tool with rich schema descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is created, its visibility and verification state, registration requirements, and the receipt return. It omits explicit usage guidance but that is partially covered by the purpose clarity.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all five parameters. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but because the schema carries this information, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Leave') and resource ('Agent request'), and adds critical distinguishing details: public, visibly unverified, no registration, and a private signed receipt. This clearly differentiates it from the many read-only sibling tools like get_pulse_wall and search_signals.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to leave a public, unverified Agent request without registration) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for selecting another tool. There are no excluded cases, so the guidance is adequate but not strong.

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