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

Annotations already disclose that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent or destructive. The description adds context about the preflight checks and optional recipient binding, but does not describe failure modes, what happens if the checks fail, or what the returned payload indicates. For a mutation tool with no output schema, more behavioral detail would be expected, but the description provides some value beyond the annotations.

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 front-loads the primary action (

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 the complexity and the presence of many sibling tools representing a workflow, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the return value looks like, what happens if the preflight checks fail, or how the issued capsule is used next. With no output schema, the description should provide more context for an agent to successfully invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does: 'capsule' is identified as the signed continuity capsule, and 'recipientAgentCardUrl' is explained as an optional binding to an opted-in recipient agent. This gives agents enough context to infer the param purposes, though the exact format or signing requirements for the capsule are not detailed.

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 action (issue) and the resource (a signed continuity capsule), and mentions an optional binding step. The phrase 'next signed continuity capsule' distinguishes it from creating (create_handoff_capsule) and verifying (verify_handoff_capsule), though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings. The purpose is unambiguous for an agent familiar with the domain.

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 mentions the prerequisite checks ('after NAIF Trust Passport and five-minute delegation preflight checks'), implying when it should be used relative to those steps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternative tools (like delegation_preflight for checks, or verify_handoff_capsule for validation). The timing is implied but not fully explicit.

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