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

With dectructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false already in annotations, the description goes well beyond them: it specifies exactly what mutates (passport receipt, GAVE at your out-ledger, signed chain hop, grain-side replies), what is never sent to the beach (enc_secret), when auto mode will and will not act, and that balances move on read. This is strong transparency and no contradiction with 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 long and dense, with nested parentheticals and run-on clauses that make it harder to scan than it could be. Every sentence does earn its place, but the structure is not exemplary: the same level of content could be organized more cleanly by verb, mode, and params.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by stating the return fold {verified, kept, replied, forwarded, dropped, hau} plus marker_new. It also covers verification paths, permission modes, when slots are ignored, signing secrets, and write effects, which is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real parameter-level meaning beyond the schema: credit_accept 0..offered IS the transfer, endorsing writes a GAVE at your out-ledger, execute decisions run regardless of permission, and hau's split semantics. It complements the schema rather than repeating it.

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 opening states a concrete job: walk a committed channel for new rider-bearing probes since a marker, verify them deterministically, and then PERCEIVE or ACT. It names the resource types (grain, pool, acumulator) and the two main modes clearly, and it does not confuse itself with pscale_verify_rider. The heavy SAND jargon (social neuron, passport 6.2, position 9) slightly obscures the core message for a non-expert reader.

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 makes the invocation context clear: use this to drive the L3 relay loop, and choose ask mode to get verdicts/cand idate verbs or auto/execute mode to act. The layering note ('sits above sand-rider and l3-relay; walk those to author probes') gives some alternative guidance. It does not, however, explicitly enumerate sibling tools or state 'use tool X instead when...'.

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