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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing that it credits only the managed Conductor Relay DB balance, is not connected to any chain or external wallet, has no external withdrawal, enforces one grant per agent per 24h, and requires a bearer token. These details are not derivable from the annotation flags.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, scope, side effects, exclusions, and policy reference. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains dense without unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers all necessary context: what, when, limitations, side effects, and authentication. It points to the policy for additional details, and the output schema handles return values, so nothing is left unresolved.

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?

With zero parameters and a schema showing an empty object, the description doesn't need to explain inputs. The baseline of 4 applies because the description adds context about what the request entails without needing parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'request the capped trial sandbox faucet for test CPTM' with 'SANDBOX/ONBOARDING ONLY' scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from earnings and treasury tools, making it unambiguous among sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('SANDBOX/ONBOARDING ONLY') and when-not-to-use ('NOT agent earnings', 'NOT Agent Treasury / Catalog earned commission'), along with a clear alternative clarification for earned commission. This effectively prevents misuse.

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