veyline_preflight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the result is signed and short-lived, that it is policy-enforced, that no funds move, and that a specific scope plus the authoritative quote are required. It omits what the preflight returns, how long the signature stays valid, and whether repeated calls are idempotent, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the safety guarantee, then prerequisites, then the parameter intent. The trailing parenthetical about the A2A skill is the only disposable content.

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 12-parameter, 10-required tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers safety and prerequisites but not the result. An agent still does not know what a successful preflight yields (a signed token? an ID?) or how that artifact is consumed by a later step.

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 75%, so baseline is near 3, and the description does add a meaningful constraint: recipient, amount, asset, and network must come from the authoritative quote rather than being invented. But it says the quote is only needed 'when available' while the schema marks it required, and it says nothing about request_hash, quote_id, action, approval_id, or wallet_address.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Request a signed, short-lived, policy-enforced payment preflight' — and immediately bounds it with 'No funds are transferred.' That distinguishes it from a real payment execution, though the siblings (veyline_status, veyline_usage) are not referenced, so cross-tool disambiguation is only established by implication.

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?

Prerequisites are stated ('Requires Veyline execution scope and the original authoritative x402 quote'), which tells the agent when the call can succeed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus skipping it or what to do next, and the phrase 'when available' for the quote object contradicts the schema, which marks quote as required.

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