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

The description discloses critical behavioral details beyond annotations: route_card structure (approved_copy, required disclosure_text, forbidden_claims, version), commission crediting condition (verified conversion + Treasury finalization), DB-CPTM-only restriction with no cash-out/withdrawal/bridge/redemption, and mandatory compliance obligations. It also mentions bearer token requirement, significantly exceeding the basic annotations.

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 structured with the purpose first, followed by return details, commission and restriction context, compliance mandates, and auth. Every sentence adds value and no fluff is present. It is moderately long but proportional to the tool's complexity.

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 an output schema present, the description still adds comprehensive context: the type of result (route_card, commission summary, tracked link), commission conditions, internal-network restriction, and mandatory compliance rules. This makes the tool's behavior clear even without seeing the output schema. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (intent and surface) with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states, so it relies on the schema to convey parameter meaning.

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 the specific verb 'resolve' with a clearly defined resource ('buyer-intent signal') and outcome ('eligible approved offers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_direct_offers. It clearly states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 for resolving buyer-intent signals to offers, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over alternatives like list_direct_offers or claim_job. There are no usage exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving usage boundaries inferred rather than explicit.

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