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

Beyond the annotations (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds material behavior: the draft costs $0, the return is a private dashboard link with authorised watermarked raster pages, raw unpaid text and original PDF/DOCX are never returned, and daily/email/network limits apply. That is rich context the structured fields do not carry.

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?

Four tight sentences lead with the purpose/precondition and then cover cost, output, and limits without padding. Slightly dense and the data-handling sentence is long, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what comes back (the private dashboard link and watermarked raster pages), what is withheld (raw text and original files), and the preconditions and limits. Nothing essential for invoking it correctly appears to be 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are documented as coming from start_document, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax, format, or usage nuance for case_id or access_token, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 pairs a specific verb ('starts the real draft') with a clear resource ('protected draft') and scopes it with the precondition 'eligible ordinary document whose questions are complete'. That locates the tool in the flow relative to answer_questions and get_payment_link, but no sibling is named or explicitly excluded, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 states when the tool is applicable ('for an eligible ordinary document whose questions are complete') and the title reinforces the pre-payment timing. However, it names no alternative tools or failure cases, so the agent must infer what to do when the document is ineligible.

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