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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds concrete behavioral details beyond that: it is free, keyless, moves no money, returns a refusal reason when a wallet has no settled work/no banked credit, and notes that facts are public and readable at their own endpoint. It also mentions the HTTP endpoints for issuance, which adds transparency about the workflow. No contradiction with 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 lengthy (about 180 words) and packs in extra details like the HTTP issuing endpoints and the statement about facts being public. While it is front-loaded with the core purpose, some sentences (e.g., the issuing endpoint specifics) could be trimmed without losing essential meaning. It is not verbose enough to be a serious problem, but it is not as concise as it could be.

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 two-parameter optional tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (price, content, refusal reason), how to choose the input, refusals, costs, and read-only safety. The output schema presumably details return fields, so the description doesn't need to. It could explicitly state whether exactly one parameter is required, but the 'or' phrasing implies that. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 both parameters have meaningful descriptions. The description adds further nuance: it explains that a wallet for a work-record certificate includes settled packets, accepted proofs, and banked credit, and that a place is for a standing certificate under The Vealth Standard. It also clarifies the refusal condition involving the wallet parameters, which enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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: to price and preview a Vealth credential certificate before payment. It names the resource (credential certificate) and the action (price and preview), and distinguishes between two certificate types (work-record and place). The title reinforces this, and no sibling tool overlaps with this exact pre-purchase preview behavior.

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 explains when to use the tool (before paying, for pricing/preview) and provides guidance on selecting the parameter type (wallet for work-record, place for standing certificate). It implies it is not for actual issuance since it says 'BEFORE paying' and notes that payment buys the artifact. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context makes usage boundaries clear.

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