Attested Agent Execution — bounded agent run (PAID $1.00)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations don't: the exact price (1.00 USD) and payment rail (x402/USDC on eip155:8453). However, it never explains what 'bounded' means — time/token limits, what happens on failure or non-idempotent retry, or whether charging occurs per attempt.

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?

Very short, but the first line restates the title verbatim, which is pure duplication. The route and pricing sentence is the only substantive content; structure is fine but not front-loaded with anything beyond name and price.

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 paid, non-idempotent, open-world execution tool, the description leaves major gaps: no explanation of what the agent does with the task, what the bounds are, or how payment is settled per call. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but parameter and cost-behavior gaps remain.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the two parameters. An agent must infer from bare titles ('Task', 'Context') what content belongs in each, what format the task string expects, or how context affects the run.

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?

'Bounded agent run' gives a verb and resource, and the description adds the remote route POST /v1/agent/run. But 'attested' and 'bounded' are left undefined, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like v1_agent_preflight or v1_research_attested_brief, which also concern agent execution.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer v1_agent_preflight, v1_agent_handoff, or v1_research_attested_brief. The only implied usage is 'this costs money', which is stated but not framed as a decision rule.

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