get_virtuals_tender

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new context: authentication is required (authenticated customer session), the billing tier (x402 or subscription), the backing API path, and an explicit authority disclaimer ('This read grants no authority'). It does not disclose failure modes or pagination, keeping it below a 5.

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 core sentence is tight and dense with useful content, but the description opens with a bracketed capability/tier/API/authority blob that front-loads routing metadata ahead of the purpose. That preamble is not wasted entirely (it carries auth and billing facts) but it delays the actual statement of what the tool does.

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?

With no output schema, the description does enumerate the returned data categories (commitments, role progress, settlement state), which is helpful. However, for a four-required-parameter authenticated tool with 0% schema coverage, it leaves the identifiers and their formats unexplained, so an agent still lacks what it needs to invoke the tool correctly on the first try.

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% and all four parameters are required, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them — yet it mentions none of tenderId, sessionId, sessionToken, or agentAddress. It also omits the meaningful constraints the schema enforces (the 'fdat_' tenderId pattern, the 0x agent address format, session token length), leaving an agent to discover required identifier formats by trial and error.

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 names a specific verb and resource set: read an authenticated ACP tender plus its immutable commitments, role progress, and settlement state. That is clearly distinguishable from the mutation siblings (cancel_virtuals_tender, bind_virtuals_tender_job, evaluate_virtuals_tender), reinforced by 'This read grants no authority.' It stops short of 5 because the leading bracketed capability/API metadata competes with the actual purpose statement.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the many closely related siblings (get_workflow_status, evaluate_virtuals_tender, get_cycle_status, get_receipt) are named as alternatives. The only guidance is an implicit precondition ('available_when_deployment_prerequisites_are_met') and the read-only framing, both of which require inference.

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