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

Beyond annotations, it explains that the tool relays to the same public POST endpoint, holds no keys or funds, is free with a valid signature, and records but does not accept the intake. It also identifies the signer model (wallet or passkey) and the returned id/Regen account context.

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 front-loaded around the handover flow and concrete inputs. It is slightly repetitive in restating the free/no-key behavior twice, but the repetition reinforces important constraints rather than obscuring the core instruction.

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, the description need not fully document return fields, yet it still summarizes the recorded intake id and derived Regen account. It also covers cost, signer, relay behavior, and the distinction between recorded and accepted state.

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 already 100%, so the schema does most of the parameter work. The description still adds meaningful constraints by emphasizing that bodyJson must be passed unchanged from prepare_place and that signature is over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN.

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?

It names a specific action and resource: completing the signed place-intake handover as step 2 of 2. It explicitly links to prepare_place and distinguishes the recorded state from acceptance, making the tool's role clear against sibling 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use instructions: pass the BODY_JSON from prepare_place unchanged and the wallet signature over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. It also directs the agent to place_status for tracking, which clarifies the alternative follow-up tool.

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