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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it lists the key return fields, describes attestation issuance only when issue is true, and gives the verification URL pattern. It also discloses deterministic behavior, error handling for missing or unknown API fields, structured refusal for ineligible plans, and that Philidor does not prepare transactions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, and most sentences add useful operational context rather than repetition. It is somewhat dense and could be more scannable, but the length is justified by the absence of annotations and output schema.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both behavior and returns; it does so by naming the attestation fields, optional issued-attestation fields, verification URL, refusal behavior, and error policy. For this tool's complexity, an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 the positions, limits, constraints, agentId, and issue parameters in detail. The description reinforces that positions and limits are caller-supplied and that no policy is preselected, but it does not add parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: it checks whether supplied positions conform to supplied limits and constraints, and calls POST /v1/graph/check. It also draws a clear boundary against recommendation tools by saying it does not recommend a vault and does not preselect a Philidor policy.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to test positions against caller-provided limits and constraints, with no preselected policy and no wallet-specific behavior. It includes an explicit non-use boundary ('does not recommend a vault') but does not name alternative tools for recommendation or comparison tasks.

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