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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool does not actually enroll anyone, does not hold keys, and that the resulting balance is custodial, uninsured, and 'could be lost.' This goes far beyond the name/schema and is essential context for the agent.

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 yet information-dense, starting with the primary purpose and then adding essential workflow and risk warnings without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the most important information.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is self-sufficient: it explains what the tool returns, how to use it, and the critical custodial risks. It also provides the follow-up endpoint, making the entire flow clear.

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 schema description already fully documents the single parameter 'address' as 'the address that will own the netting account.' The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 tool 'Returns the EXACT message the account must sign with its OWN key to open a custodial balance.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it 'holds no key and enrols nobody,' making it unambiguous that this is a payload-generation tool rather than an enrollment action.

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 provides a complete usage workflow: get the text, user signs it, then POST {address, signature} to /api/netting/enroll. It also gives critical guidance on when to use this tool (before enrolling) and contrasts it with other tools by highlighting that 'every other tool here moves funds without Robyn ever holding them.'

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