Prepare an order access policy

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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful context by noting the transaction is 'unsigned' and conditionally required, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides the usage condition. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or necessary context missing.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and conditional trigger. The only gap is the meaning of depositId, but the relation to peer_cash_prepare's output makes it reasonably inferable.

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?

The input schema only defines depositId with a minLength, and the description provides zero explanation of what depositId is or how it relates to the workflow. With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter semantics remain unclear.

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 uses a specific verb ('Prepare') and names the exact artifact ('unsigned verified-buyer access-policy transaction') with payment contexts (Venmo, Cash App, PayPal). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling prepare tools by focusing on the access-policy variant.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use only after finalization when peer_cash_prepare returned accessPolicyRequired=true.' This establishes a clear precondition and implies when not to use (before finalization or when the flag is false), which is strong guidance.

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