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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description earns credit by explaining why: it "may replace or clear prior planning details." The long negative inventory (no wallet/identity/document/fund/offer changes, no crypto movement, no Proof of Funds letter) adds genuine safety context an agent cannot infer from annotations alone, though it says nothing about the returned confirmation.

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?

Purpose and trigger come first, followed by clearing semantics, then the scope limits. The final exclusion sentence is long and enumerative but each clause blocks a plausible misread (e.g., assuming it moves crypto or issues a Proof of Funds letter), so it earns most of its length.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety/idempotency, so the description only needs scope, triggers, and clearing behavior — all of which are present. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly (including how to reset state) is missing.

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 all four parameters (asset, workflow, wallet_id, target_price_usd) are already documented, including null-clears semantics. The description reinforces the same set but adds no format, validation, or workflow-value detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb (saves) and a specific resource (in-progress purchase planning details), then enumerates exactly which values are persisted: property price, crypto asset/wallet, and chosen workflow. It also carves out clear boundaries against siblings like add_wallet, generate_proof_of_funds, and offer/funds operations, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

"Call it when the user states or changes any of these" gives an explicit trigger, and "Pass null to clear a saved planning value" covers the clearing case. The exclusion list (does not change wallets, identities, offers, etc.) effectively rules out misuse, but no sibling is named as the alternative to use instead, which keeps it short of a 5.

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