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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: it discloses that MM verifies the signature, locks USDC on-chain in escrow, and pays the network fee itself. It does not say whether the lock is irreversible, whether submission can be retried after a failed verification, or how errors surface.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consequence, with no redundant phrasing.

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 simple three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the side effect and fee handling but omits what a successful call returns and what failure modes look like, which the agent would otherwise need before invoking it.

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 all three parameters (token, deal_id, signature) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or provenance detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Submit the signature of the funding request") plus the concrete outcome (USDC locked in escrow on-chain). It is distinguishable from siblings like mm_get_funding_request or mm_accept_terms, though it doesn't explicitly name where it sits in the deal flow.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a valid deal token and a signature from eth_signTypedData_v4 are required), and no mention of alternatives or ordering relative to mm_get_funding_request. The agent must infer the sequencing from the tool name alone.

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