Preflight deployment request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description confirms the read-only nature ('does not deploy, does not require signature') and adds the required scope ('agreements.write'), but does not provide additional behavioral details beyond what annotations already communicate.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose and inputs, second clarifies non-deployment and non-signing, third gives usage guideline and scope. Every sentence adds value, no redundant text, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description lacks any mention of what the tool returns (e.g., validation result, boolean, error messages), leaving an agent uncertain about the response format. This is a significant gap.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The description summarizes the five parameter groups ('agreement JSON plus target chain, deployment values, participant wallet mappings, and observer context'), but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool checks readiness for deployment, explicitly clarifies it does not deploy or require a signature, and distinguishes itself from the sibling deploy_agreement. The verb 'checks' plus resource 'agreement plus inputs' is specific.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Always run this before signing a deploy permit.' It also contrasts with deploy_agreement by stating it does not deploy. However, it does not mention when not to use it or how it differs from validate_agreement, a potential sibling alternative.

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