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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the requirement for the X-Agent-Did header and the flow (human sees the request in an inbox and taps approve/deny). However, it does not explain what happens after approval/denial, error conditions, or whether the request is synchronous – leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes a functional quote. It wastes no words while conveying the core purpose, the human interaction, and an important header requirement.

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 an 8-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the central flow but omits the return value, side effects, and what happens after approval. It is adequate for a simple request tool but lacks details needed for full understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 75%, so the description is not the primary source of parameter info. It maps key params (priceCents, characterId, itemIds) to the quote, but does not clarify the uncovered params like itemIds or currency. Most of the description's parameter references echo the schema descriptions already present.

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 states the action: "File a merge request" and quotes the exact request message. It specifies the resource (a human's approval) and distinguishes from siblings like listBodies/items, negotiate, and previewOutfit by focusing on the approval workflow.

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 provides clear context for when to use: after finding a body and items, the agent asks a human for money and approval. It implies the use case by the quote and the approval inbox, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since this tool's purpose is unique among siblings, this is adequate.

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