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

The annotations already mark this as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it requires the session capability token, produces an unsigned quote-bound action, and never signs or submits. It does not state whether the old action is invalidated, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation followed by requirement and safety exclusion. No filler or repetition of schema data.

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?

The core semantics are clear and annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness, so an agent can select the tool. However, there is no description of what the call returns or how the replacement affects the existing session, and the tool's place in the v2 flow is only implicit via 'quote-bound'.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description bears the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies session_token as the caller's session capability token, but gives no meaning or constraints for session_id or idempotency_key, both of which are required.

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: replacing an expired unsubmitted v2 session action with a fresh quote-bound unsigned action. It immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings like assetfare_v2_prepare and assetfare_v2_quote by emphasizing refresh and non-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 specifies the trigger condition ('expired unsubmitted') and a hard boundary ('Never signs or submits'), which lets an agent know when not to call it. It does not name alternative sibling tools or explain ordering relative to quote/prepare, so it falls just short of explicit routing.

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