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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the multi-step process, prerequisites (enrolled credential), the nature of the economic event, and the dry-run preview. It does not explicitly state irreversibility or failure modes, but the high-level side effects are well covered.

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 dense but structured, front-loaded with the primary verb, and each sentence contributes a distinct piece of information (process, prerequisite, preview, workflow). It is perhaps longer than minimal, but all content is relevant and no 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 lack of output schema, the description still indicates the output (Autonomous Action Certificate with anchored hash). It covers prerequisites, safety preview, and the discovery→fund workflow, making it comprehensive for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 value by explaining the role of dry_run ('no money moves', 'do this first'), the meaning of risk_value ('drives the policy SHOULD-gate'), and the reference to opportunity_id ('by its id'). This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 the action ('Fund a discovered Opportunity') with a specific resource and purpose ('real, authority-backed, proof-gated economic event'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with discover_opportunities and outlining the end-to-end flow.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Use discover_opportunities to find... then fund it by its id' and 'Preview the entire loop free with dry_run:true - do this first.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements, but the contextual workflow is clear.

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