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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that settlement happens on-ledger before order creation and returns specific fields. However, it omits details on failures, reversion, or authentication beyond the signature requirement.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates key actions and returns.

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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains the payment flow but does not cover all input fields or provide a complete picture of inputs and outputs.

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 only 10% (only paymentSignature described). The description fails to explain the 9 other parameters (e.g., notes, greeting, contactName) beyond referencing the 'same spec' from a previous step, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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 explicitly states 'Complete a purchase', with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like create_purchase_challenge and get_catalog by indicating this is the final payment 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?

The description implies sequential usage after create_purchase_challenge with 'Provide the same spec plus paymentSignature', but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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