surety__post_bond

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that a 2% fee is computed and frozen at posting time, which is a helpful side-effect. However, it does not state whether the operation is irreversible, requires specific permissions, or has other side effects like slashing.

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 very concise at three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and two sentences explain key parameters. No redundant phrases. However, the opening bracketed phrase '[surety — bonding + ruling-gated slashing (risk transfer)]' adds context but could be integrated.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on required permissions, return behavior, error states, and complete parameter meanings. Only two of five parameters are documented.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains principal (positive integer in minor units) and expires_at (ISO-8601 date) but omits principal_agent, coverage, and currency. Coverage and currency have defaults but their semantics are not clarified.

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 action: 'Post a surety bond behind an agent's promises'. The verb 'Post' is specific, and 'surety bond' identifies the resource. It provides context about bonding and ruling-gated slashing, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like activate_bond or release_bond.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., activate_bond, release_bond) or when not to use it. The description does not mention prerequisites, success conditions, or fallback tools.

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