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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, it precisely delineates the blast radius: no new charging jobs are accepted, but already-charged jobs proceed to delivery and acceptance. That partial-destruction boundary and the explicit 'repeating it is a no-op' confirmation are exactly the context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Three short sentences: scope first, effect second, idempotency last. Every clause carries decision-relevant information with no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns — what is and isn't affected and repeat-call behavior. It stops short of stating any auth requirements or what the response confirms, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and venue_slug is documented in the schema itself; the description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for the slug, so the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 with a specific verb and resource ('withdraw a venue's authorisation') and scopes it to the buyer side, making the inverse relationship to venues_authorise immediately obvious without opening either schema.

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 makes the intent clear ('The venue can send no new job that charges you') so an agent knows this is the tool for cutting off future charges, but it never explicitly names venues_authorise as the re-authorisation counterpart or states preconditions such as whether the venue must currently be authorised.

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