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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful runtime behavior: a 'real HTTP call to the canonical Pabandi endpoint', a real Noir circuit compiled at startup, and a degraded 'constraint-execution proof' fallback when no SNARK prover is available. It says nothing about permissions/auth for agent_secret, cost, latency, or whether any server-side state is created by generating a proof.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded, but the text then repeats itself: the purpose is restated in the '[owner]' sentence and the 'upgrades to a succinct SNARK' claim appears twice in nearly identical wording. Roughly a third of the description is redundant rather than additive.

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 8-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description names the artifact produced ('PTP attestation ... verifiable offline by any third party') but never sketches what the response actually contains or how failures surface. It is adequate to understand the intent, thin on what the agent gets back.

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%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the description adds the arithmetic relationship the schema cannot express: 'deposit = price - commission, fee = deposit*rate' plus a 'binding commitment to the valuation'. That tells the agent the parameters are coupled and must be internally consistent, which is real meaning beyond the field descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a zero-knowledge proof that an escrow split ... is valid', and scopes the privacy guarantee ('WITHOUT revealing the private price/valuation/secret'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings like pabandi_start_escrow or pabandi_verify_trust_attestation, so an agent still has to infer which step of the flow this is.

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 never says when to call this rather than pabandi_start_escrow, pabandi_verify_trust_attestation, or pabandi_verify_passport, and gives no prerequisites (e.g. must an escrow exist first?). 'The privacy + verifiability moat' is marketing framing, not routing guidance.

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