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

The description explains the handshake flow: client sends $0.01 USDC on Base mainnet, returns treasury address and instructions, and requires status polling. This adds context beyond the annotations, which only indicate the tool is not read-only, idempotent, or destructive. It doesn't disclose failure modes or idempotency consequences, but annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 three clear sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, with no filler. Each sentence adds value: initiation, return, and follow-up.

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?

The description covers the initiation step, expected client action, network/currency, return value, and the follow-up polling step. With an output schema present, return values are further specified. It could mention failure/timeout scenarios but is quite complete for a simple initiation tool.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, such as address format or API key handling, which are already covered in the schema descriptions.

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 it initiates a $0.01 USDC onboarding handshake for a new DPX integration, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes itself from integration.status by noting that status polling is a separate step.

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?

It explicitly states this is required for all new integrations before production settlements and directs the user to call integration.status to poll for confirmation. This provides clear when-to-use and a related alternative, though it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios.

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