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

The description states that re-submitting for the same packet returns the surface already held, which is a claim of idempotent behavior. However, idempotentHint is false, creating an annotation contradiction. The added 'Free, always' and targetUrl handoff are useful, but the contradiction is serious.

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?

Four short sentences with the action and prerequisites front-loaded. Every sentence adds behavioral or pipeline information; 'Free, always' is brief and relevant. No filler or 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, signature expectations, resubmission behavior, and downstream routing via targetUrl. It omits explicit failure conditions, but those are not essential for this narrowly scoped step; the idempotency conflict is penalized under behavioral transparency rather than here.

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%, and the description adds crucial provenance semantics: bodyJson must be passed UNCHANGED from prepare_evidence_surface, and signature is the wallet's personal_sign output over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. This meaningfully extends what the schema fields alone communicate.

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 opens with 'Complete the reservation' and the title says 'step 2 of 2', tying it unambiguously to prepare_evidence_surface. It clearly states the verb, resource, and pipeline phase, and distinguishes it from sibling submit_evidence_write by referencing its specific prepare counterpart.

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?

It gives clear usage context: pass the exact BODY_JSON from prepare_evidence_surface and the signed MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, then use the returned targetUrl with prepare_claim. It also covers resubmission behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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