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

The description says 'Burn via POST /v1/session/cert + X-SQLGuard-Session', which implies a destructive/consuming action, directly contradicting the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations. It also fails to disclose side effects or state changes.

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 brief but includes a fragment ('Returning-wallet lane.') and cryptic syntax ('Exact USDC', 'Burn via...'). It mixes purpose and usage instructions in a way that is not well structured, though it is short.

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?

Even with annotations and a one-parameter schema, the description is insufficient: it does not explain what a 'PASS window' is, what 'between Workday and Pilot' means, or what the output represents. The contradiction between the described 'burn' action and the readOnlyHint further undermines completeness.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter agent_id, with a clear description ('Agent or wallet id that will own the sprint window'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 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 ('opens a 7-day Ed25519 PASS window') but relies on unexplained jargon such as 'Returning-wallet lane', 'Workday', and 'Pilot'. It does not clearly differentiate this tool from siblings like sqlguard_session or sqlguard_pilot, making the purpose ambiguous for an agent.

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 usage context ('Returning-wallet lane', 'between Workday and Pilot') and instructs to 'then sqlguard_verify before execute', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.

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