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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the signed/hash-chained ledger nature, that credits go to the workspace issuer rather than the agent, a 1-unit cost, and the auth requirement (workspace key via _meta[satledger/api-key]). It omits edge behavior such as duplicate agent_id handling or reversibility, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose and ledger nature, credits semantics plus sibling routing, cost, and auth. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, cost, credit semantics, and the immutability profile. It does not describe the return value or uniqueness constraints on agent_id, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 25%, with only api_key documented in the schema. The description adds genuine meaning for initial_credits (mints to the workspace issuer, not the agent), but agent_id and display_name get no explanation, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Create an agent in your workspace') and immediately characterizes the resulting object as 'a named ledger whose every event is ed25519-signed and hash-chained.' It also names the sibling it is not (fund_agent), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: credits are minted to the workspace issuer, and 'fund_agent moves credits across when you need usage metering,' naming both the alternative and the condition selecting it. It also flags the 1-unit cost. No explicit when-not-to-use case, so not a full 5.

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