Pay for and open IMD work

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the payment path (x402 + Permit2 + quote approval), that it spends IMD, the required authorization token, and the four refusal conditions. It omits idempotency/single-use token behavior and what happens on partial failure.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending on a high-signal warning ('SPENDS IMD.'). Every clause carries behavioral weight with 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 a costly, 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical safety story (cost, authorization, failure modes) and need not explain return values. The main remaining gap is the unexplained action enum, which an agent must still resolve from the schema.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description meaningfully annotates three parameters — checkToken must match the exact body, confirm must be true, and duplicate purchases are refused (implying allowDuplicate) — but it says nothing about the central seven-value action enum, title, or input object, leaving significant semantics to the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Pays from the configured wallet ... and opens the work') and flags the cost with 'SPENDS IMD', which cleanly separates it from read/prep siblings like imd_check and imd_draft. The reference to checkToken 'from imd_check / imd_draft' reinforces the distinction, though it never names an explicit alternative tool.

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?

Provides clear preconditions and refusal conditions (needs a passing checkToken for the exact body, requires confirm: true, refuses duplicates and cap overruns), which effectively tells the agent when the call will and won't succeed. It stops short of explicitly sequencing itself against siblings such as imd_check or imd_find_existing.

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