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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavior: fail-closed behavior on validation failure, 'Issues nothing' confirming no side effects, and the conditional mandate parameter when BIND. These details help the agent understand exactly what happens when the gate is invoked.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the tool's identity and purpose. It includes the endpoint, required inputs, usage context, and behavioral outcome without any wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, usage timing, failure behavior, and conditional parameters. No important aspects of the tool's behavior are missing for a pre-execution authorization gate.

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%, with each parameter already well-documented (e.g., 'Exact SQL about to execute (must match sql_hash)', 'Ed25519 signature'). The description adds only a brief summary of the parameter combination ('certificate+signature+sql (+ mandate when BIND)'), which provides no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as an authorization gate ('ABMP GATE — free portable authorize bus') with a specific endpoint (POST /v1/gate) and inputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling business tools by stating that 'any mutating agent tool fail-closes here before execute,' marking it as the pre-execution checkpoint.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before execute' for mutating agent tools) and provides clear context that this is a mandatory gate. It does not name alternatives, but the 'fail-closes here' phrasing implies it is the required authorization step, making the usage context unambiguous.

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