Containment Register

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful fact — a 0.25 USD x402 payment on eip155:8453 — but says nothing about what a 'containment register' writes, whether rules can be superseded, or what auth/DID binding is expected.

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 text is short but not efficient: the first line merely repeats the tool title, and the second is pure pricing metadata. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy of expression.

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?

An output schema exists, which relieves the description of explaining return values, but a mutation tool with 5 undocumented free-form parameters and only a route/price line is far from complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% across 5 parameters, and the description compensates with nothing. Names like 'rules', 'policy', 'rule_signatures', and 'emergency_contact_did' are opaque without explanation of their shape, relationship, or whether they are jointly required despite required=[].

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 restates the title ('Containment Register') and adds a transport/pricing line, but never says what the tool actually does — no verb, no resource framing, no outcome. An agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like v1_policy_check or v1_verify_catalog_register based on this text.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of any alternative among the ~100 sibling tools. The only actionable information is the POST route and price, which says nothing about when this tool is the right choice.

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