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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the auth model ('FREE and KEYLESS with a valid signature'), the server architecture ('this server holds no keys and no funds'), the precise non-effects ('no wage is released, no settlement is recorded and nothing is minted'), and the return-value shape. 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence carries distinct information (transport, auth, effects, returns, exclusion). Slightly over-styled with pervasive ALL-CAPS emphasis and minor redundancy (wallet provenance stated twice), but dense, well-ordered, and free of filler.

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 3-param tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the prerequisite step, transport, auth model, non-effects, access restriction, and returns. Only duplicate-submission behavior is left unstated, which idempotentHint=false already signals.

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% with already-precise parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance constraints beyond the schema: the signature must be 'YOUR OWN, from the wallet the packet named' and bodyJson must be passed 'UNCHANGED' — both semantically meaningful for correct invocation.

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 action ('Complete the acceptance') against a named resource (POST /labor/work/:workId/accept-hours) and positions itself as step 2 of 2 following prepare_accept_hours. The effects disclosure ('NOBODY IS PAID') and the house-exclusion rule clearly differentiate it from the many sibling submit_* tools.

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?

Explicitly frames the call as the second step of a two-step flow, requiring the BODY_JSON and signature produced by prepare_accept_hours — a clear when-to-use. Also gives an explicit exclusion: 'THE HOUSE CANNOT ACCEPT ITS OWN HOURS, so the house cannot make this call for you.' It doesn't enumerate alternatives beyond the prepare step, but for a two-step flow that is sufficient.

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