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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful traits: it consumes one free blank (resource cost) and warns 'Never send private keys' (security constraint). It does not describe what is returned, whether issuance is idempotent, or how errors/duplicate issuance behave, which leaves notable gaps for a cryptographic write operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the two-party signing rationale and key safety warning. Efficient and parseable, with only minor redundancy in the mid-sentence enumeration of agreement types.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description should more fully cover what the issued blank form returns and how it chains to blankas_mark/blankas_verify. It explains the signing flow well but omits the return artifact and downstream tool relationship, leaving it only adequately complete.

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 schema already documents party_a and party_b including key formats, making 3 the correct baseline. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as the constraint that the two parties must differ beyond what the schema states.

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+resource: 'issues a numbered, issuer-signed blank form' for deals/contracts/orders/service terms, and adds the two-party signing flow. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like blankas_mark or blankas_verify.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Start a verifiable agreement between two AI agents' and 'Uses one free blank,' giving the context in which it applies. However, there are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives among the sibling tools, so the agent must infer placement in the workflow.

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