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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: this produces on-chain instructions that the buyer's wallet must execute, i.e. the tool itself does not move funds. It omits expiry, idempotency, and permission requirements for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the critical behavioral note, then the next step. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential workflow handoff and the nature of the produced artifact. It could say more about what the intent contains (payment address, amount, expiry), but the core calling knowledge is present.

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 100%, so every parameter (including chain default and walletProvider enum) is already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create a USDC payment intent') plus the concrete scope ('to fund a specific milestone in an accepted deal'). An agent can distinguish it from confirm_funding or release_payment based on this alone.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-up step and sibling tool ('After sending the on-chain transaction, call agentpact.confirm_funding with the tx hash'), giving clear sequencing context. It does not cover exclusions or preconditions (deal must be accepted, prior intent existence), so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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