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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it's 'human-reviewed' and that the result 'contains a confirmation link' — useful context suggesting async/offline processing. However, it doesn't disclose the human-review delay, that it's non-reversible once requested, or any rate limiting. Given the annotations carry a moderate load, the added 'human-reviewed + confirmation link' context earns a 3.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence delivers the primary purpose and key constraint ('human-reviewed', 'after Unquant delivers useful work'), and the second states the return value. Efficient and front-loaded, though slightly terse given the openWorldHint semantics that might merit more guidance.

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?

Has an output schema (confirmation link), full schema param coverage, and clear contextual gating. The description is complete for a request-submission tool: it states the action, the return artifact, and the timing precondition. A more explicit note about human-review latency could help, but this is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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% — all three parameters (request_summary, value_summary, next_step_summary) have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds the 'after useful work' semantic tying value_summary to a prerequisite, which is extra context. Baselines at 3 with full schema coverage, and the description provides marginal added meaning about the value_summary's role in the upgrade flow.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Create a human-reviewed Agent Pro request'. Distinguishes from siblings (all other catalog/market/news/data tools are read/list operations). It clearly states the action and the condition ('after Unquant delivers useful work'). Minor gap: doesn't explicitly differentiate from account_upgrade_status sibling, but the purpose is reasonably distinct.

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?

States a clear condition for use: 'after Unquant delivers useful work'. The description communicates the timing/context well. Doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the 'after useful work' gate provides clear usage context distinguishing it from status-checking (account_upgrade_status). Could be stronger with explicit exclusions.

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