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

Annotations already signal that this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context: the token is one-time, it must be shown to the human Owner, and submission should wait. Details like token expiration or invalidation of prior tokens are not covered, but the description goes beyond the annotation data.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded purpose, no filler. The first sentence says what the tool does and why it matters; the second adds the necessary human-owner step. Every part earns its place.

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 an output schema present, annotations, and a single well-documented parameter, the description covers the essential workflow constraints: token creation, mandatory display to the Owner, and dependency on confirm_and_submit. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema fully describes sessionId with an explanation and example, and the description adds no new parameter-level information. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a one-time confirmation token required before confirm_and_submit.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling confirm_and_submit: this tool prepares the token, that tool performs the submission.

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 explicitly identifies when the tool should be used (before confirm_and_submit) and gives a clear workflow constraint ('do not submit without it'). It does not enumerate alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but enough contextual guidance is provided for a single-purpose tool.

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