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

Beyond the annotations (write, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses what actually happens: terms are recorded in the caller's log, confirmed in the counterparty's log, and the matched pair is sealed on-chain. It also notes the API key requirement, which is important authorization context not present in 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effects before the prerequisites. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no waste.

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 multi-step write operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effects, authorization, and the prerequisite read step. It could be slightly more complete by noting failure modes or the result of sealing, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds only an indirect hint that handshake_id comes from the inbox, without expanding on stream_id or actor semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb (accept) and resource (handshake) scoped to the caller's organization, and describes the concrete effects: recording terms, confirming in the other log, sealing on the Privi chain. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ledger_handshake_offer and ledger_handshake_reject.

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 explicitly directs the agent to read terms first with ledger_handshake_inbox, establishing a prerequisite. It does not name the alternative actions (e.g., reject) or state when not to accept, leaving some inference to the agent.

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