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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description says the tool mints a durable capability and that 'a child's uses are reserved out of the parent' — i.e. it writes to a ledger and depletes the parent's remaining uses, and it costs ~$0.05 per call. Repeating an attenuation with the same parent is not idempotent, so the annotations contradict the described behavior. Flagged as an annotation contradiction.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb+resource and with the cost note last. No filler, though the retry/use_nonce sentence is dense and mixes guidance about a different tool's parameter into this tool's description.

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 6-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema (so return values need not be described), and non-default behavior around authority conservation, the description covers purpose, retry rationale, and price. The remaining gap is that the stated safety profile conflicts with the annotations rather than being merely incomplete.

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 six parameters (holder, max_uses, ttl_seconds, action_scope, parent_lease_id, payment_signature) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the parent/child authority-conservation semantics ('a 1-use grant cannot father N free children') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States two specific actions with their resources: minting a durable single-use capability lease, and attenuating a parent lease. It also names the downstream sibling (vc_lease_consume), so the agent can place this in a workflow without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete use condition ('before an irreversible action you may need to retry') and an explicit alternative pattern (stable use_nonce with vc_lease_consume), plus the cost per call. It does not state when to choose attenuation versus a fresh mint, nor any exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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