preview_external_handoff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds beyond annotations: it confirms no writing, no external service opening, and no execution/payment, and introduces the concept of 'redacted' preview, which provides additional behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence that is well-structured, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every part contributes meaning.

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 no output schema and simple input schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its constraints. It could hint at output format (e.g., 'returns a redacted receipt') but is sufficient for a preview tool.

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 documents all three parameters. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description offers no extra parameter guidance.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: preview a redacted external marketplace handoff receipt. It also clearly lists what it does NOT do (no writing, no external opening, no execution/payment), making it distinct from sibling tools like agoragentic_execute or agoragentic_quote.

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 implies usage context: use when you want to preview without side effects. It contrasts with operations that write or execute, but does not explicitly name alternatives. However, sibling tool names serve as implicit alternatives.

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