exchange_credentials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool involves negotiation, returns a token with intersection scope, and lists exact return fields. It does not explain potential failures or side effects, but the core behavior is well described.

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?

The description is two well-structured sentences. The first sentence explains the action, the second states the return format. No unnecessary words; every sentence provides essential information.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by specifying return fields. It covers the main use case but could mention prerequisites (e.g., having a valid passport) or error states. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a tool with two parameters.

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 detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the negotiation process and output format, though it slightly implies both agents submit passports while the schema only expects one. This minor inconsistency is offset by the useful context.

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 performs an A2A handshake where two agents exchange passports to negotiate a short-lived authorization token. It uses specific verbs ('present', 'negotiate') and resources ('passports', 'authorization token'), and the purpose is distinct from siblings issue_passport and verify_passport.

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 implicitly indicates the tool is used when an agent needs to obtain a token from a counterparty based on passport verification. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear.

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