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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: 'this server holds no keys, no funds and no tokens', 'Free with a valid signature', and that it returns the recorded offer and token terms. This goes beyond annotation-only information.

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?

Three focused sentences: the first gives the exact action and inputs, the second explains the relay endpoint and custody model, and the third states cost and return value. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 an output schema exists and all parameters are documented, the description supplies all necessary calling context: prerequisite step, exact parameter sourcing, endpoint, cost, custody implications, and return summary. An agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds crucial semantic guidance by emphasizing that bodyJson must be passed UNCHANGED from prepare_token_offer and by specifying that signature is the 0x… personal_sign output over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, which adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Complete the offer' by passing workId, bodyJson, and signature. It identifies this as 'step 2 of 2' and references the prerequisite prepare_token_offer, distinguishing it from 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?

The description gives clear usage context: use after prepare_token_offer, passing its BODY_JSON unchanged and the wallet signature over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. It does not explicitly state when not to use it relative to other submit_* siblings, but the step-2 framing makes the workflow position obvious.

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