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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the envelope is signed and placed into a queue, which implies asynchronous processing, but it omits permissions, idempotency, failure behavior, and what happens after queuing.

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 compact and front-loads the action, with no wasted sentences. However, the dense field list is not structured as a parameter guide, which limits readability for a 12-parameter tool.

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?

Given 12 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It mentions signing and queuing but does not cover required/optional distinctions, defaults, authorization, or operational constraints needed for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It maps conceptual terms to some fields such as goal, task, recipient, token budget, mandate, and price, but leaves sender, ttl_s, visibility, context_query, cost_usdc, max_cost_usd, and others unexplained.

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: "Отправить конверт агенту" (send an envelope to an agent), and names key payload concepts such as goal, task, recipient, token budget, mandate, and price. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like soma_route or soma_claim.

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 does not say when this tool should be used instead of siblings such as soma_route, soma_claim, or soma_inbox. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance beyond the implied action of sending an envelope.

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