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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds material facts: a per-call platform fee of CHF 0.03, the requirement to obtain a quote before calling, and a prohibition against treating free text as dispatching. It stops short of describing success/return behavior or failure modes for a money-touching mutation.

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?

Well front-loaded and free of filler, with every sentence carrying a distinct fact. But the telegraphic fragments ('Needs state ORDER.', 'Never: Treat free text as dispatching.') are stylistically broken and demand interpretation, which costs structure points.

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 fee-charging mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, cost, and call ordering, which is a reasonable amount of context. It omits what a successful assignment returns, what happens if state is not ORDER, and how failures are surfaced, leaving notable gaps.

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 four parameters including patterns. The description only reinforces the call ordering (quote_id, mandate_token, idempotency_key) without adding format or constraint meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Assigns a technician') plus a precondition ('Needs state ORDER'), so an agent knows what the tool does and when it is eligible. It does not differentiate itself from look-alike siblings such as schedule or flow_configure, and 'by the business's rule' is left unexplained.

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?

Gives a real precondition (state ORDER) and implies sequencing with a sibling ('quote first, then send quote_id'), which is useful workflow context. However, no alternative tool is named for the negative case ('Never: Treat free text as dispatching'), and the guidance is delivered in cryptic fragments rather than explicit when/when-not routing.

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