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

Annotations declare this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write with no open-world effects, and the description adds substantial context on top: a one-time credential shown exactly once, irrecoverable if lost, and manual settlement during alpha. This is genuinely beyond what the annotations convey, though it omits pagination/return shape (there is no output schema to carry it).

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the highest-stakes warning about the manage key. The "The result carries manageKeyNotice saying so" sentence is mildly redundant with the preceding warning, but overall there is little waste.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description does cover the key behavioral stakes (credential minting, non-recoverability, manual settlement) and points to the result field. However, with 14 parameters at 21% schema coverage and no parameter guidance in the description, it is not complete enough for an agent to populate the request confidently.

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 only 21% across 14 parameters, so the schema leaves most fields undocumented (email, wallet, fundingUrl, requirements, acceptanceCriteria, routingDecisionId, etc.). The description names no parameters at all and therefore does not compensate for the coverage gap, leaving an agent to guess at field semantics.

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?

"Post a public Birdfury mission and mint its one-time bf_post_ manage key" gives a specific verb plus resource and a distinctive secondary effect, which separates it cleanly from get_mission, list_missions, and claim_mission in the sibling set. An agent knows immediately this is the mission-creation tool.

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 gives an operational instruction ("Surface the manageKey to your user before doing anything else") and explains why rotate_key needs the current key, but never states when to choose post_mission over siblings like route_task or create_paid_request, nor any prerequisites for posting. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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