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

Annotations only give the boolean profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world), so the description carries extra weight and delivers: it states the record is written to your log immediately, becomes a matched pair on acceptance, and is sealed on the Privi chain, plus the auth requirement and the counterparty's Privi dependency. What it does not cover is failure/expiry behavior or reversibility if the counterparty never responds.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the what and how, then the prerequisites. Dense but every sentence carries information; nothing is padding. Slightly long for the core purpose but justified by the multi-step nature of the operation.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema and a full schema description coverage, the description supplies the missing lifecycle context (immediate local record, eventual matched pair on acceptance, on-chain sealing) and the auth/handshake prerequisites. It is missing only the failure/expiry path and what identifier the caller receives, which are minor given the rich schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only light context, sketching the kinds of dealings (payment, data transfer, delivery, agreement) that map to action_type and details, without adding syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Start a Privi Handshake: a two-sided record of a dealing with another company's agent.' It explains the narrow scope (payment, data transfer, delivery, agreement) and the outcome. It never names the sibling tools that complete or inspect the flow (ledger_handshake_accept, ledger_handshake_inbox), so an agent must infer the routing from the concept rather than an explicit sibling reference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description covers the sequence ('when the other company accepts, both logs hold matching entries') and the prerequisites (your organization API key; the other company must also use Privi Ledger). However, it does not say when to prefer this over ledger_record_action for a one-sided entry, nor does it name any alternative tool. Adequate context, no exclusions.

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