cedulon_spend

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

The description discloses both possible outcomes—an allow path returning a signed COSE receipt JSON and a deny path returning the fail-closed reason. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate hints like readOnly false and idempotent false. It doesn't explain the policy itself, but it clearly communicates the behavioral contract.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds distinct value. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary background.

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?

While the description explains return variants, it does not cover policy prerequisites, parameter formats, or the meaning of nonce, payee, and currency. With no output scheme and only 40% schema description coverage, these omissions make it difficult for an agent to invoke the tool correctly the first time.

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 only 40%, yet the description adds no parameter-level meaning for nonce, payee, or currency, and does not even mention 'amount' or 'tool'. With most parameters undocumented in both schema and description, the agent has little guidance on how to set valid inputs.

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 identifies the action ('spend'), the resource ('mock rail'), and the policy-gating nature of the operation. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like cedulon_verify_receipt and cedulon_audit by describing the spend-specific outcome.

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 implies this tool is used when a policy-gated spend should be attempted, and sibling names suggest the other tools serve different purposes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or condition-based routing.

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