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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'issues' a warrant, implying a mutating/side-effect operation, but does not explain consequences, permissions required, persistence, costs, or the shape of the resulting warrant. The demo mode hint ('10-minute shape check') is helpful but insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The phrase 'Complements Agent-Rider' adds little value and is somewhat cryptic, but the overall length is appropriate and no major redundancy exists.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and very low schema coverage, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It explains the basic intent and demo path but omits how the warrant constraints work, what the response contains, and how this relates to the warrant receipt and verify siblings.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'rider' and 'demo' but leaves five parameters (actions, max_usd, max_calls, allow_hosts, ttl_seconds) completely unexplained. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 and resource: 'Issue a Warrant (mandate) for a Rider identity.' It clearly identifies the tool's action and target, though 'Complements Agent-Rider' is vague and does not meaningfully distinguish it from sibling tools like spl_warrant_receipt or spl_warrant_verify.

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 usage instructions: pass a rider JWT, or use demo:true for a 10-minute shape check. This provides a clear context for when each mode is appropriate, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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