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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: this is legacy, not recommended as a primary buy, and the old POST /v1/session/cert + verify flow still works. However, the meaning of 'burn' is ambiguous and no additional behavioral details like auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects are disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: it immediately signals legacy status and non-recommendation, then names alternatives, then states that endpoints still work. There is no filler, though the cryptic shorthand 'OFF TABLE' and 'burn' make it less polished than it could be.

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 tool's unclear functional purpose, the description is incomplete for invocation. An agent learns that the tool is legacy and discouraged, but not what actually happens when it is called, how the result relates to the workday window, or what the expected outcome is. The mention of POST /v1/session/cert is an external endpoint clue rather than a full description of this tool's behavior.

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?

There is only one parameter, agent_id, and its schema description already explains that it is the agent or wallet id owning the workday window. With 100% schema description coverage, the tool description does not and does not need to add parameter-level detail. 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 identifies the tool as a legacy non-wealth job meter and clearly marks it as not the primary purchase path, but it never states a concrete action the tool performs, such as purchasing, activating, or reading a workday. It is more of a deprecation/policy label than a functional definition, so an agent is left to infer what calling sqlguard_workday actually does.

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 explicit negative guidance: it is 'OFF TABLE as primary buy' and directs the agent to prefer sqlguard_challenge for the exact $100 unlock or a Gateway invoice for $299. It also notes that legacy endpoints remain functional. This is strong routing guidance, though it never states a positive scenario in which sqlguard_workday should deliberately be selected.

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