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

Annotations mark the tool readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description says it 'opens a 7-day PASS window' and instructs the agent to 'Burn via POST /v1/session/cert + X-SQLGuard-Session.' Opening a window and burning a session cert imply state mutation/destruction, directly contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the scope ('Returning-wallet lane'), state the action, and give a minimal workflow. It is concise, though the protocol details could be clearer for a broader audience.

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?

The description omits prerequisites for being a 'returning wallet,' what 'Exact USDC' means, and the meaning/reason for burning a session cert. The schema and output schema reduce some burden, but the conflicting safety annotations and opaque jargon leave an agent under-informed.

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?

The single parameter agent_id is fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage ('Agent or wallet id that will own the sprint window'). The description adds eligibility context but does not materially extend parameter meaning, so the baseline applies.

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 action and result: 'Client Sprint opens a 7-day Ed25519 PASS window' in the 'Returning-wallet lane.' It is not a tautology and gives scope, though 'Exact USDC' and 'Workday/Pilot' are unexplained domain jargon.

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?

It clearly positions the tool as the 'Returning-wallet lane' and places it temporally 'between Workday and Pilot.' It also gives concrete follow-up steps ('Burn via POST /v1/session/cert... then sqlguard_verify before execute'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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