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

Annotations only give the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description adds substantial behavioral context: the 10-minute deadline, that the mint always occurs regardless, that a refused name leaves the window open, the 10🍒 credit, and the auth requirement. This is well beyond the annotation bar, though it does not restate the non-idempotent nature explicitly as such.

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?

It is long for a two-parameter tool, but front-loaded and dense: the outcome and the three decision paths come first, then permanence, then name rules, then auth. Nearly every sentence carries operative information, with only mild redundancy between the decline and lapse explanations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-outcome burden and does so: it explains what happens on name, decline, and lapse, where to find the deadline, and the auth requirement. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the agent_name value is permanent and irreversible, the full validation rules (3-32 chars, lowercase/digits/hyphen, no leading/trailing/double hyphen, no reserved words), and that decline=true short-circuits the wait rather than being an error path.

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 action on a specific resource: answering an open SBT naming window by engraving a chosen name or declining. It is clearly distinguishable from its closest sibling, sbt_naming_window, which is referenced as the read-side status source rather than a competing action.

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 states exactly when the window opens (first verified contribution, only if NightWatch assigned the name), the three paths available (name it, decline=true, let it lapse), the alternatives' consequences, and the prerequisite of an agent key via agent_connect. Nothing about when to call versus what to call is left to inference.

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