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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: in demo mode it returns a sample ticket with nothing ordered, charged, or contacted, and in the pilot it is the only tool that commits money (the quoted fee plus a vidit operator fee) and only within the principal's budget and policy. This financial-commitment semantics is not conveyed by any annotation flag.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and object, and the three following sentences each carry distinct and non-redundant information (selection rule, demo behavior, pilot money behavior). Slightly dense but no wasted sentence.

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 7-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers demo return behavior, money commitment, and budget/policy constraints. It omits error/retry and idempotency behavior, but the core mechanics an agent needs are present.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that `choice`/`chosen_by` must reflect a principal decision or explicit rule and never positional picking. That goes beyond the schema's field-level definitions.

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 specific verb (commit) and resource (one of the sample quotes returned by `status`), so an agent knows it selects and commits to a quote rather than searching or asking. It names the sibling `status` as the source of the quotes, distinguishing it from `ask` and `search_library`.

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?

Says the choice must come from the principal or an explicit principal rule, and explicitly says 'never by position', which is actionable selection guidance. It implies the `status` call must precede it but does not state when not to use it versus alternatives.

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