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

Annotations only flag it as a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive call; the description adds substantial context beyond that: exact cost tiers (¢2 repair / ¢3 mint), a $0.05 per-call ceiling, the payment_required status for unpaid calls, and a minutes-long seal latency. The 'anything else mints a new slug' line also explains the non-idempotency declared in annotations without contradicting it.

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?

What the tool is comes first, then the repair-vs-mint branch, then payment and timing — a sensible front-loaded order with no filler sentences. The opening sentence is jargon-dense ('grafted, reviewed and woven'), which costs a little readability for the payoff in precision.

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 eight-parameter, no-output-schema, paid, long-running job, the description covers what matters operationally: cost, payment refusal status, async nature, and the fact that the result carries job_id plus poll and wiki URLs. It never mentions the proof-of-work path (pow_nonce/pow_challenge) or which parameters are required in practice, leaving those entirely to the 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters and the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning on top: it ties kind and context_slug to concrete pricing tiers (repair vs mint, including the stub/unknown-slug rule), which is the one piece of parameter behavior not fully spelled out in 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 names a specific verb chain (collect, graft, review, weave) and a concrete resource (a signed sealed page) with the named source shards, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as survey, answer, ask, or density, so the agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 clearly explains the kind=follow_up + context_slug path versus the mint path and their respective tiers, which is actionable invocation guidance. However it never states when to choose this tool over survey, ask, answer, or read_page, and no exclusions or prerequisites for minting are given beyond pricing.

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