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

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive call; the description adds the economically critical behavior that execution charges 5% of verified saving capped by the signed permit, and that return values are HTTP status plus JSON body (useful since no output schema exists). It does not explain what a signature/permit must contain or what happens on signature failure.

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 tightly written sentences, with the core action and return value front-loaded and the pricing caveat second. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Lacking an output schema and any parameter documentation, the description does well to state what comes back and the fee model, but it omits the signing workflow, permit semantics, and any per-parameter meaning. For a 7-parameter signed-request tool this is adequate but leaves real 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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the burden, yet it never explains method, path, signer, issued_at, signature, body, or idempotency_key. Only a faint hint ('to a Recta route', 'the permit the agent signs') gestures at path and signature, leaving most parameters to guesswork.

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 ('sends a request signed by the agent's own wallet to a Recta route') plus the return shape, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling recta_prepare_signed_request, which an agent must understand is the prerequisite step.

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 cost sentence implies the key decision point — evaluations are free while executing a decision's route incurs a 5% fee — which is genuine usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to recta_prepare_signed_request for building the signature.

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