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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the wallet signs MESSAGE_TO_SIGN locally, private keys are never provided, cost is free/no gas when the waiver lane is enabled, and the house never holds a key. It also enumerates explicit non-effects (does not fund, hire, grant site access, or certify an ecological outcome), which is exactly the boundary an agent needs before calling a prepare-step.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the sibling contrast, then safety and cost constraints; nearly every sentence carries information. There is mild redundancy around cost — 'It is free when the signed waiver lane is enabled' and 'Cost and signer: free, no gas' restate the same fact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; what remains — signer model, key handling, cost, non-goals, and the gate check — is all covered. For a prepare/sign tool with read-only semantics, nothing an agent needs to call it safely is 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: requesterKind=agent only for genuine agent-originated demand (never relabel a human request), and lat/lng must come explicitly from an entitled caller, never inferred from device or host location. Those are policy constraints the schema does not encode, though the mutual exclusivity of workId/definitionId/objective is left to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('prepare an attributable request for an existing work packet, a canonical definition, or a specific objective') and explicitly distinguishes itself from posting a new packet by naming the /labor/request bridge that resolves the need. An agent can tell it apart from prepare_post_work and submit_request without opening a 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use contrast ('Unlike posting a new packet, this asks the existing bridge to resolve the need to one governed packet or an explicit blocker') and signals the follow-up step with 'Check the real gate's response.' It does not explicitly name submit_request as the next call or state when to prefer request_status over this tool, so routing is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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