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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the tool does not run the judge, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (npub parameter is mentioned but not explained), side effects, or whether it is idempotent.

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 description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary detail for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks critical context: no details on trade_proposal format, no prerequisites, no error scenarios, and no guidance on authentication. Given four parameters and many sibling tools, this is insufficient.

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 only 25% (only npub has a description). The tool description does not add any explanation for the parameters entry_id, dpop_token, or trade_proposal, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 clearly states the verb 'Persist' and resource 'draft trade proposal', and explicitly distinguishes it from 'running the judge' (i.e., executing a trade). This differentiates it from sibling tool 'judge_trade'.

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 implies that this tool is for saving a draft when the user does not want to execute a trade, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'judge_trade' or when not to use it.

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