confirm_terms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it records a server-side event with a timestamp, specifies that it's free (no HBAR charged), and indicates it's a prerequisite for paid tools. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, response format, or idempotency, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second gives usage timing, the third explains server-side behavior, and the fourth clarifies cost. No wasted words.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the prerequisite nature, server-side recording, and cost. However, it doesn't describe what happens after confirmation (e.g., how paid tools become enabled) or potential error responses, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Confirm acceptance of the HederaIntel Terms of Service') and resource ('Terms of Service'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which involve account, contract, governance, HCS, identity, or token operations. It precisely defines the tool's unique function within the server's ecosystem.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Must be called before any paid tool will execute') and provides a clear prerequisite condition. It also specifies an alternative ('must match the version returned by get_terms'), giving complete guidance on usage context and dependencies.

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