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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether acceptance is irreversible, what deal state changes occur, whether funds are locked or moved, what happens if the wrong wallet type is passed, or what the call returns — all critical for an agent invoking a commitment-style action.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the deal-type branching packed into the second, with no filler. Every clause maps to a real distinction an agent must act on (role, deal type, wallet requirement, follow-up tool).

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 mutation-like action with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the wallet-parameter branching well but omits prerequisites, post-acceptance state, error conditions, and return behavior. An agent can pick parameters correctly but cannot predict consequences of the call.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains that payout_address applies to sellers, wallet_address applies to buyers only when there is a seller bond, and that neither is needed for card/bank deals. It leaves receive_address and name entirely unexplained in both schema and description, which is a real gap given 6 parameters.

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?

"Agree to the current terms" gives a specific verb (agree/accept) and resource (the deal's terms), so the core action is unambiguous. It also differentiates itself from mm_get_payout_setup_link by explaining that the payout link is the follow-up step for card/bank deals, but it never explicitly contrasts with mm_change_terms, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 conditional usage context: for USDC deals a wallet is supplied depending on role and seller bond, while card/bank deals need no wallet and instead route to mm_get_payout_setup_link. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g., that terms must already exist or have been quoted) or when an agent should prefer mm_change_terms over accepting.

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