authorize_virtuals_tender_v2

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that deployment readiness and committed providers are verified first and that no job is created or funded. It omits what a successful authorization unlocks, whether the signature/nonce is single-use, and what happens on expiry.

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 plus a compact capability/auth header, front-loaded with the core action. The bracketed metadata is dense jargon but conveys tier and authority, and there is no filler.

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 an 8-required-parameter, non-idempotent, open-world authorization tool with no output schema and no per-parameter docs, the description leaves too much unsaid: how the EIP-712 payload is obtained, tie-in to the prepare step, replay/expiry behavior, and failure modes.

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% across 8 required parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only characterizes 'signature' (EIP-712, produced by the customer ACP wallet) and hints at nonce/expiry via 'exact'; sessionId, sessionToken, agentAddress, tenderId, and providerSelectionId get no semantic explanation anywhere.

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 concrete verb and resource: submit an exact V2 EIP-712 signature for a tender authorization. The bracketed prefix also pins the API route and authority endpoint. It does not explicitly contrast with prepare_virtuals_tender_v2 or submit_signed_approval, but the 'authorize ... tender_v2' framing is specific enough to be told apart.

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 capability flag 'available_when_deployment_prerequisites_are_met' implies a precondition, and 'it still cannot create or fund jobs' rules out a whole class of expected side effects. However, nothing tells the agent where in the sequence this sits relative to prepare_virtuals_tender_v2, reserve_virtuals_tender_funding_v2, or bind_virtuals_tender_job — the ordering is left to inference.

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