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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world traits, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: 'fail-closed' semantics (ambiguous inputs deny rather than pass) and an explicit cost of 0.012 USDC. It stops short of stating what the decision response looks like, but the safety-relevant behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single dense sentence with the decision verb front-loaded and no filler; the semicolon cleanly separates the behavioral claim from the cost. Efficient, though the check list is compressed at the expense of explaining the inputs.

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?

With no output schema and nested required objects, the description should carry more of the burden. It conveys the decision semantics and checks but never describes the shape of the result (approve/deny, reasons) or the asset/source_urls inputs, leaving meaningful gaps for a fail-closed decision tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the policy checks (jurisdiction, KYC, allowlist, limit, transfer-window), mapping onto the policy object's fields, but leaves the required 'asset' object and the 'source_urls' array (maxItems 5) unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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+resource ('RWA transfer decision') and the checks it performs, so an agent knows this evaluates a transfer rather than screening an asset or party. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as rwa_transaction_assurance, preflight, or verify, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 lists the checks performed but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never references the sibling tools. An agent has no signal for choosing this over rwa_transaction_assurance or preflight.

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