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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully explains why: it writes a decision record but 'sends nothing', so no external action occurs despite being non-read-only. Listing the concrete checks performed adds real behavioral context beyond the structured hints. It could still say whether failed gates raise errors or are recorded as decisions.

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 gate list is front-loaded and informative, but the second and third sentences duplicate each other almost verbatim ('Writes a decision record; sends nothing' vs 'a decision record, nothing sent'). Roughly a third of the text is redundant restatement.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the annotations plus the 'sends nothing / writes a record' note cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the undocumented tokenId and the absence of any guidance on what a failed pre-check produces.

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 0% and the sole parameter tokenId is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains what the token identifies (the tender/cell being pre-checked) or its format, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 enumerates the gates checked (anchor, skill, policy, acceptance authority, hashlock, budget) and states it is a dry run that writes a decision record, so the intent is inferable. However, it never states a clean verb+resource (e.g. 'validates a tender take'), instead opening with a noun phrase, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as tender_inspect or tender_list.

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 phrase 'Every gate the cell passes before taking a tender' implies the usage moment (before accepting a tender) but gives no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing. An agent must infer that tender_inspect is for read-only inspection and this tool for preflight simulation.

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