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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: inputs are 'processed transiently' and 'not stored, logged, or retained', compute modes determine server-side versus browser delegation, gpu:true nodes always delegate, and an AP2 artifact with execution_hash is exported. It also clarifies that the FV-status receipt is a snapshot verifiable offline. These details meaningfully enrich the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints 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 repeats 'OpenChainGraph compute node' in the first two clauses and then packs URLs, FV-status mechanics, and delegation details into a dense paragraph. It contains useful operational information but is not front-loaded with the core purpose and carries avoidable redundancy, making it heavier than necessary for an agent to parse.

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 selecting and invoking the tool, the description omits the actual royalty-split validation semantics, leaving the domain function to be inferred from the title. It covers compute routing, transient processing, and provenance well, but does not compensate for the missing purpose against numerous similar validate_* siblings. The output schema and annotations cover returns and safety, so this absence of domain clarity is the primary completeness gap.

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 baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description. The description only re-explains the compute enum behavior that the schema already documents, and adds nothing about parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids, or policy_parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It neither strengthens nor weakens the parameter understanding.

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 opens by restating the title ('Royalty Split Validator') and labeling it an 'OpenChainGraph compute node' without ever stating what the validation actually does. It focuses on compute modes, provenance, and data handling rather than the domain function of validating a royalty split, forcing the agent to infer purpose from the name. This is closer to tautology than a clear functional statement.

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 tool versus the many sibling validate_* tools, and no alternatives are named. The only actionable instruction, 'Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only', is a data-handling constraint rather than a tool-selection criterion. No exclusions or context for choosing this tool over others is provided.

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