compose_issuance

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

The description explicitly notes that it 'composes a transaction,' signaling this is a transaction-building operation rather than a broadcast, which adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the essential action and scope. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with 12 parameters, the description is minimal but sufficient because the schema provides detailed parameter semantics. It clearly states the tool's role (compose issuance) and introduces the create/update distinction, which is essential context. However, it does not mention prerequisites or post-compose steps, but these are not required given the schema richness.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 12 parameters, so the description is not required to explain them. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool 'compose a transaction to issue (create) a new Counterparty asset, or update an existing one,' identifying the specific verb (compose), resource (Counterparty asset), and scope (create or update). This differentiates it from sibling compose_* tools, which target different operations like sending or dispensing.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool (issuing or updating assets) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. Since the purpose is unambiguous, it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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