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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, which gives basic safety info. The description adds significant context: the order is not active until BOTH keys sign, SaSame holds no funds, verifies no legal identity, etc. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations, though it could be more structured.

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 very long and dense, with multiple sentences that are not front-loaded. The first sentence is clear, but then it dives into a long paragraph with legal and honesty boundaries that could be bulleted or structured. It feels rambling and could be more concise and structured.

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 complexity (12 parameters, 9 required) and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (bilateral signing, honesty boundaries). However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., an acceptance challenge) or the exact format of the response, which might be crucial for an agent to proceed. So it's adequate but with gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Open a neutral agent-to-agent work-order DRAFT'). It distinguishes the state (draft vs active) and notes the bilateral signature requirement. It does not directly name the sibling alternatives like work_order_deliver or work_order_accept, though the description makes the scope clear enough.

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 (agent-to-agent work-order with bilateral signatures) but doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool vs work_order_accept or work_order_deliver or other siblings. The final honesty boundary gives some context but doesn't provide clear 'when to use / when not to use' guidance.

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