Buy a coordination workspace (paid via x402)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payment model (paid via x402, $0.25/7 days, 1000 ops) and the benefit ('every barrier and lock operation is FREE and FAST'). However, it omits details about what happens after expiry, renewal, or payment failure. Partial transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and price. Each sentence adds value: pricing, benefit, and use cases. No fluff 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 purchase tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, duration, ops limit, and specific use cases. It lacks lifecycle details like renewal/expiry behavior, but sibling tools (payment_status, verify_receipt) may cover those. Complete enough for agent decision-making.

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 100% with webhookUrl described as 'default webhook for coordination events.' The description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already provides sufficient semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Bups a coordination workspace' with specific pricing and duration. It distinguishes itself from siblings like coord_barrier and coord_lock by being the purchase step that unlocks free operations. The verb+resource+scope is unambiguous.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'fan-in sub-agents (coord_barrier)' and 'stop two agents doing the same irreversible thing (coord_lock).' It implies this should be used before those operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with payment_status or verify_receipt. Clear context, no exclusions.

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