initiate_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns a signed offer tied to an expiry, and the handoff requires a follow-up call. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent essential timing and protocol information.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and return values. Every sentence adds essential information without fluff. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the high parameter count (7), 0% schema coverage, and no output schema details beyond a brief mention, the description fails to contextualize most parameters. It explains the high-level handoff flow but omits crucial details like the role of context_json, api_key, and tenant_id, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It only mentions the 'expires_in_seconds' concept implicitly in the second sentence, but provides no meaning for common parameters like tenant_id, from_agent, to_agent, task, context_json, or api_key. This leaves the agent lacking understanding of what each parameter represents.

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 explicitly states 'Initiating agent offers a task', using a specific verb and identifying the resource (a handoff). It also mentions the return values (handoff_id + signed offer), clearly distinguishing this tool from the sibling 'accept_handoff' which receives the offer.

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 indicates that this tool is for the initiating agent and that the receiving agent must subsequently call accept_handoff, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other siblings like list_handoffs or verify_chain, so guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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