Prepare an order access policy

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

The description adds 'unsigned' transaction details and the conditional trigger, which goes beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive). However, it doesn't mention auth requirements or what to do with the unsigned transaction, but given the annotations already cover safety, this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, concise and well-structured. No fluff.

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?

Provides essential context (after finalization, only when accessPolicyRequired=true) and notes the transaction is unsigned. However, it doesn't explain what happens with the returned transaction or how depositId relates, but given the simple parameter and sibling tool context, it's mostly complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description alone must explain the parameter. It mentions 'depositId' nowhere, and the parameter's role is only implied by the tool's purpose. The schema provides a pattern but no semantic explanation, leaving the parameter under-documented.

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 identifies the action: 'Prepare the unsigned verified-buyer access-policy transaction'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'for Venmo, Cash App, or PayPal orders' and ties it to a specific step in the flow (after finalization, when accessPolicyRequired=true).

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?

Explicitly states 'Use only after finalization when peer_cash_prepare returned accessPolicyRequired=true', giving a clear precondition and indicating when NOT to use it. This provides strong usage guidance without ambiguity.

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