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

Annotations only give openWorld/idempotent/destructive hints; the description carries real added value by disclosing server-side enforcement rules (untagged claims default to "assumed", agreeing while raising a conflict is refused) and that the enforced envelope is returned. This is exactly the behavioral context the annotations cannot express. It stops short of permission/auth detail, though "keep it secret" on the link hints at seat-token auth.

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 with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The enforcement rules follow logically, though the closing "enforced envelope is returned" restates the preceding sentence's theme slightly.

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 7-parameter tool with nested claims/reviews/proposal/escalation objects, no output schema, and 29% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks guidance on the complex conditional structures (when to populate proposal vs escalation, verdict semantics), leaving major gaps.

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 29% across 7 parameters with nested objects, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The rule about untagged/unreferenced claims becoming "assumed" and agree-conflict refusal touches claims/reviews semantics, but status, message, proposal.terms, depends_on, and escalation remain unexplained.

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 ("Send one PXP envelope") with a timing qualifier ("on your turn"), so an agent understands this is the core move action. However, it never names the sibling it pairs with (wait_for_turn) or the alternatives, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

"On your turn" implies the activation condition and the natural complement to wait_for_turn, but the description never states when NOT to use it or explicitly points to answer_escalation as the alternative for escalations.

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