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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that the call is free, keyless, and moves no money, and that no signing is required. It also explains the refusal path ('a wallet with no settled work and no banked credit is refused for free, before any payment') and the economic model (payment buys the sealed artifact, never the achievement). That is substantive context the annotations cannot convey.

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 lead sentence is strong and front-loaded, but the body repeats itself: 'free, keyless, read-only, and moves no money' is followed by 'Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign,' which is a redundant fragment. The payment-vs-achievement philosophy sentence, while informative, could be tightened without losing signal.

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 need not explain return values, and annotations already cover the safety profile. What remains — the two input modes, the price/preview/refusal behavior, the free-and-keyless constraint, and the fact that the call precedes a paid issuance — is all supplied, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by tying wallet to 'settled packets, accepted proofs and banked credit' and place to 'a standing certificate under The Vealth Standard' — a semantic mapping the schema strings do not provide. It does not state that the two parameters are mutually exclusive modes, which is the one remaining gap.

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?

First sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Price and preview a Vealth credential certificate') plus a temporal constraint ('BEFORE paying'), which immediately separates it from issuance tools like place_standing or retire_and_certify. It also names the two certificate flavors (work-record vs. standing), so an agent can match either request shape without opening the schema.

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 gives clear selection logic between the two modes: 'Give a wallet for a work-record certificate... or a place for a standing certificate under The Vealth Standard.' It also frames the tool as the pre-payment step ('Issuing is HTTP (POST /certificate/worker/... or POST /certificate/place)'), implying when to move on. It stops short of naming a sibling tool to call instead, so it is not a full 5.

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