select_virtuals_provider_plan_v2

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new context: it cannot authorize or spend funds, it operates on a live registry, and it requires three distinct verified controller identities. Those are real behavioral constraints beyond the annotation set, though return shape and pagination-like behavior are unaddressed.

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 capability/tier/API/authority prefix is dense metadata but front-loads routing context, followed by two tight sentences. Jargon-heavy but no filler sentences beyond the metadata block.

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 readOnly annotations covering safety and no output schema required, the safety and effect profile is adequately conveyed. But for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and multiple address-like params, the missing parameter semantics leave the definition not fully self-sufficient.

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 parameters are documented only by type/pattern/length with no meaning. The description does not explain sessionId, agentAddress, sessionToken (auth), or accountAddress, nor the distinction between agentAddress and accountAddress. It must compensate and largely does not.

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 ('Select') and a tightly scoped resource: a deterministic live-registry ACP V2 committee with one eligible provider per fixed role and three distinct verified controller identities. 'Selection-only action cannot authorize or spend funds' implicitly separates it from sibling authorize/funding tools, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

'available_when_deployment_prerequisites_are_met' and the tier line imply prerequisites and an authenticated-session requirement, giving some usage context. However, it never names the alternative tool (e.g. authorize_virtuals_tender_v2 or reserve_virtuals_tender_funding_v2) or states when/why to choose this selection step versus those, leaving routing to inference.

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