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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Metadata only' and that payment/job creation is buyer-controlled, which sets clear expectations about side effects. It does not mention authentication, errors, or whether any verification occurs, but the core behavioral note is strong.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses no filler words. Every clause contributes meaning (e.g., 'free', 'before a token swap', 'buyer-controlled'). It is efficient and well-structured.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the timing, and the boundary (metadata-only). It does not detail the packet's contents or error scenarios, but it provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns and its role in a larger flow.

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 50% (only token_address is documented in the schema). The description adds no parameter-level information; it does not mention 'chain' or its default value, nor does it elaborate on token_address beyond the schema. This leaves the 'chain' parameter semantically underspecified.

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 ('Return') with a precise resource ('free Virtuals ACP direct-buy job-create handoff packet') and context ('before a token swap'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'token_safety_batch_checkout' by mentioning the ACP direct-buy handoff aspect.

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 explicitly says to use it 'before a token swap', providing a concrete use case. It also clarifies that ACP payment/job creation is buyer-controlled, implying the agent should not expect this tool to execute the swap. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions.

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