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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reads a well-known manifest, live-verifies identities, returns a seed, and prepares actions. It also explicitly discloses a limitation: 'AgentResolver does not persist provider state or send the external registration.' This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies side effects.

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 a single dense sentence followed by a clarifying sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Free zero-state provider onboarding') and packs the key behaviors efficiently. The final sentence about what AgentResolver does not do is valuable but could be integrated more smoothly. Slightly long but every clause earns its place.

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 tool with 2 params, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the main workflow, the key constraint (same-origin), and the non-persistence behavior. It does not explain what the 'providerOrigins procurement seed' looks like or what '402 Index registration actions' entail, but the annotations and sibling context (procure, x402_ping) fill some gaps. It is complete enough for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'origin' implicitly via 'one HTTPS origin' and 'selected same-origin x402 payment identities', which maps to the origin parameter. However, it does not explain the 'routeIds' parameter at all, nor does it clarify the format or constraints of origin beyond being an HTTPS URI. The description adds some meaning but leaves a parameter undocumented.

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 ('Bootstrap') and resource ('domain-controlled provider'), and enumerates the concrete steps: reads the AgentResolver well-known manifest, live-verifies x402 payment identities, returns a providerOrigins procurement seed, and prepares 402 Index registration actions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like procure, resolve, and verified_resolve.

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 implies when to use this tool: for zero-state provider onboarding, when you need a procurement seed and registration actions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'free zero-state provider onboarding' and the final sentence about what AgentResolver does not do provide clear usage boundaries. It could be improved by explicitly stating when NOT to use it (e.g., if provider state already exists).

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