aqb_redeem

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: a fixed 1:1 exchange rate and that the amount is expressed in human units rather than base units. It says nothing about fees, minimums, authorization, failure on insufficient balance, or whether the account defaults to the caller, which is a substantial gap for a value-transfer operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, rate, and unit convention; nothing is wasted. It is terse to the point of leaving real questions unanswered, but there is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter value-transfer tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition leaves too much unresolved: account semantics, outcome/return value, and failure conditions are all absent. The rate and unit note help, but an agent could not confidently invoke this on the strength of the description alone.

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 both parameters need explanation from the description. It clarifies the 'aqb' amount convention ('human units'), which is genuinely useful, but the optional 'account' parameter is never mentioned at all — an agent cannot tell whose account it is or what happens when it is omitted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource pair: redeem AQB for USDC at a 1:1 rate. An agent immediately knows the operation is a redemption/swap into USDC. It does not distinguish itself from potentially overlapping siblings, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus other value-moving or quoting tools, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. holding enough AQB, needing a prior quote). Usage is only implied by the verb 'redeem'.

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