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

The description discloses meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: the transaction is unsigned, the hosted builder never receives keypair bytes, and value-moving results must be finalized locally. These details clarify the tool's safety and execution boundaries. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and tells the agent exactly what the tool does. The second block is a compact but dense set of workflow directives covering pricing, routing, and signer boundary. It is somewhat boilerplate across SAP tools, but each clause carries operational value and the overall description is not bloated.

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 9-parameter builder with a rich schema and an output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the output as transactionBase64, explains the paid-builder flow, and clarifies local signing requirements. It does not explain the semantics of less/greater triggers or sizePercent, but the schema already provides those field names and basic descriptions.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond calling the order a TP/SL bracket. Some schema parameter descriptions are tautological, but the structural baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific action: build an unsigned Phoenix conditional order transaction for a TP/SL bracket and return transactionBase64. This clearly identifies the tool's resource and output, and it is distinct enough from sibling Phoenix builders like market/limit/stop-loss orders, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 detailed SAP execution workflow guidance: estimate cost first, route through sap_payments_call_paid_tool if x402 is not supported, and finalize locally when signing is required. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this conditional-order builder over sibling builders such as sap_phoenix_build_place_limit_order or sap_phoenix_build_place_stop_loss; the selection has to be inferred from the 'TP/SL bracket' phrase.

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