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

Annotations already flag a destructive, non-read-only operation. The description adds valuable context: it revalidates live contract, providers, shared balance, and exact amount, and returns a confirmation page rather than directly executing the transaction. It does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or what happens after the link is used.

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 entire description is one dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the behavioral contract and action scope, making it efficient and appropriately sized.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description is too thin. It says the return is a single HTTPS confirmation page and lists pre-checks, but it does not explain how parameters relate to each action, which inputs are prerequisites, or the behavior of the confirmation 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 0%, so the description must compensate for six parameters, but it only names action types already in the schema and loosely references 'providers', 'shared balance', and 'exact amount' without mapping them to bagId, quoteId, providerPubkey, targetCoverageSeconds, or acknowledgeOtherProviders.

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 uses a specific verb ('Revalidate ... before returning') and identifies the resource: a paid Storage provider confirmation link for pin, top-up, stop, or withdraw. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like storage.pin_bag or storage.provider_operation.

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 the tool is used to create a confirmation link after revalidating contract state, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like storage.provider_quote or storage.send_bag_link_tx, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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