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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description reinforces that no money moves and none is held, which is valuable. It adds context about the signing process (personal_sign, 5-minute window), the free nature, and that acceptance requires packet creator decision. It doesn't contradict annotations. Could add more about rate limits or failure modes, but it's quite transparent.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core action and then providing necessary details. It's longer than ideal but every sentence adds useful information. No major redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, output schema exists) and annotations, the description covers the essential workflow, payment options, and signing requirement. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to. It could be more explicit about error handling or edge cases, but it's largely complete.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some semantic context (e.g., shares must add up exactly, payment rail meaning) but largely repeats what's in the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Offer ONE price to move ONE condition of ONE place up ONE rung of the Vealth Standard'), which is a precise and distinctive action. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like prepare_bid or submit_bid, though the 'outcome' context and step 1 of 2 framing helps. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it references find_work and place_standing as prerequisites ('find_work near the place; place_standing gives each condition's rung'), and states the next step ('then call submit_outcome_bid within 5 minutes'). It also clarifies that the packet creator decides and a person accepts proofs, giving a clear workflow context.

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