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

Despite annotations providing only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description richly discloses behavior: the draft is not active until both keys sign, SaSame holds no funds, verifies no identity, creates no contract, issues no invoices, and makes no quality verdict. It also explains the return of an acceptance challenge per party, giving a clear picture of the tool's non-binding, neutral nature beyond what annotations offer.

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 includes an extensive, irrelevant introduction about SaSame and the MCP Factory ('SaSame, operated by SASAME S.R.L., continuously observes...') that does not help an agent call the tool. The 'honesty boundary' is useful but verbose. While the opening sentence is clear and the structure has a logical flow, the overall length and off-topic content make it less concise than ideal for tool selection.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the activation requirement, the neutral nature, and the return of acceptance challenges, providing enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role. However, it omits details about error handling, exact return format (though no output schema exists), and potential edge cases (e.g., malformed keys), leaving some minor gaps in 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 schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantics by mentioning 'supply buyer/provider ed25519 SPKI public keys plus hashes of the private scope, deliverables and acceptance criteria', but this largely mirrors the schema's own descriptions (e.g., 'Buyer ed25519 public key in DER/SPKI hex'). No additional format or usage details are provided beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Open a neutral agent-to-agent work-order DRAFT', specifying a clear verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes this as the draft-creation step versus later accept/deliver steps. It also clarifies the scope ('neutral') and the fact that it creates a draft, not an active order, which separates it from siblings like work_order_accept.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to open a draft) and states the condition that the order becomes active only after both parties sign, implying it is a precursor. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., work_order_accept, work_order_deliver) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between related sibling tools.

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