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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: async nature (returns task ID, poll for PAN/CVV), lifecycle (single-use, 12-hour expiry), auth requirement (cards:read_agentic scope). No contradiction with annotations; readOnlyHint=false is consistent with creation.

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?

Four sentences, each essential: action, purpose, output behavior, auth requirement. Front-loaded with the core action. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (unseen), the description explains the async flow and next steps. It covers the DPX settlement context, auth scope, and card lifecycle, making it complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context (e.g., 'merchant and amount cap') but doesn't significantly extend parameter understanding beyond the schema. It clarifies overall purpose but not parameter-specific semantics.

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 'Create a scoped Ramp Agent Card' with specific characteristics (single-use, merchant and amount cap, expires after first auth or 12 hours). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ramp.connect and ramp.settle by tying it directly to funding the fiat leg of a DPX settlement.

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 clear use case: funding the fiat leg of a DPX settlement without pre-funding a crypto wallet. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context is specific enough to guide an agent. Lacks exclusions, hence 4.

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