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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses substantial context: automation levels (FULL/ASSISTED/HUMAN), staking confirmation responsibility, inclusion of human steps and provider commands, the returned one-line runner, and the important safety note that signing steps are printed for the operator and never run. It stops short of covering auth needs, rate limits, or whether the runner itself executes anything.

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 front-loads the core purpose and then packs in useful detail about output, automation levels, commands, and safety. It is dense and slightly run-on, but the length is largely justified by the catalog-style scope and the exact runner command.

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, so the description must describe return behavior, which it does by explaining that each avenue includes automation level, staking status, pay, human steps, provider commands, and doc links, plus the returned runner command. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool provides, though error handling and pagination are not covered.

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 fully documents both id and resource, including enum values and examples. The description adds only 'Filter by id or resource,' which repeats the schema and provides no additional syntax or behavioral detail beyond it.

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 resource and scope: Taifoon workflows for earning elsewhere from a Grid box across named providers, with automation levels and returned runner commands. It clearly distinguishes this from core Grid operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from all sibling tools such as taifoon_grid_join or taifoon_grid_economics.

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 through its purpose and mentions filtering by id or resource, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or state when not to use it. The runner command mentions plan/check/run modes, which gives some implied usage context, but no sibling routing is provided.

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