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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states 'Free, keyless, read-only, moves no money' and 'Nothing in a plan has happened; no place or price is invented.' It also mentions language support (English, Spanish, Swahili) and regulated-work handling. These details complement the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them. It could mention rate limits or error handling, but the added context is valuable.

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 a single, dense, run-on sentence with many clauses and lists. It is not front-loaded or easily scannable; the core purpose is buried after a long preamble. While it is informative, it lacks conciseness and structural clarity, making it harder for an agent to quickly grasp the essential action.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema present), the description is comprehensive. It explains the plan structure, the verdict types, the nature of governed work units, and the handling of live board packets. It also covers constraints like regulated work and no invented prices. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, but it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add per-parameter detail beyond what the schema provides; it only references 'place' as an address filter and mentions 'live board packets near the place you name,' which aligns with the schema. No new semantic value is added for individual parameters.

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: it takes an objective in plain words and returns a plan with a verdict, a next call, governed work units, and live board packets. It distinguishes itself from provision_work by explicitly stating that provision_work builds a funding path instead. The verb 'send' and resource 'objective' are specific, and the tool's role is unambiguous.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool 'provision_work' and clarifies the difference: 'Not provision_work, which builds a funding path for one packet.' This provides a clear exclusion. However, it does not state when to use this tool over other siblings like find_work or get_work_packet, though the core purpose is evident. The guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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