gateway_delegate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the pipeline: verify card, certify-check, mandate with budget cap and expiry, dispatch, quarantine ingest, and receipt-on-delivery. It also states important constraints ('No artifact, no payment'), though it omits error modes, permissions, and reversibility details.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then compresses the workflow into a compact pipeline. It is dense but not padded; the final 'No artifact, no payment' constraint is useful and earns its place.

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 complex workflow tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition gives a useful pipeline overview and test-scope constraints. It still leaves important parameter semantics and operational preconditions unclear, so it is only minimally adequate overall.

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 compensate for six undocumented parameters. It hints at budget cap, expiry, card verification, and local agent types, but does not explain prompt, skill_id, or the exact relationship between the listed agent names and agent_id, leaving most required parameters underspecified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: delegating a task through a governed gateway to local test agents. It is clearly distinct in substance from card_build/card_sign/card_verify/receipt_list, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'LOCAL test agent' and 'No artifact, no payment,' which signal a test-only, non-production scope. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to card_verify or receipt_list, and no when-not-to-use conditions beyond the local/test framing.

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