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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the actual transport (POST /labor/work/:workId/back/credit), custody model (no keys, no funds, no credits held server-side), cost (free, no gas), and what is returned (the recorded offer plus the derived regen1 account). This is real behavioral context an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint alone.

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 action and inputs, then cost/trust details. The closing sentence ("Cost and signer: free, no gas... house never holds a key") partially repeats the earlier "no keys, no funds" and "Free with a valid signature" statements, costing some efficiency.

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 and full annotation coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: sequencing from the prepare step, exact input provenance, custody and cost expectations, and endpoint semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 all three parameters are already documented in structured fields. The description reinforces the critical constraint that bodyJson must be passed UNCHANGED and that signature comes from personal_sign over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, but adds little syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Complete the offer") and positions itself precisely as step 2 of 2, naming the sibling prepare_credit_offer as the source of its input. An agent can distinguish it from the many submit_* siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 prerequisite path is explicit: call prepare_credit_offer first, then pass its BODY_JSON unchanged along with the wallet signature. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., behavior on retry given idempotentHint=false), but the ordered step framing gives clear context.

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