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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the trial is auto-approved via API, provisioning may involve waiting for a machine, and the call is not a billing or upgrade action. The retry guidance reinforces the idempotentHint annotation without contradicting any structured metadata.

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?

Every sentence carries a distinct operational fact: precondition, approval behavior, non-billing/non-upgrade, and timeout handling. The description is dense but compact and front-loads the most important invocation requirement first.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the preconditions, side effects, timeout procedure, and distinction from related tools. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and to recover from timeout by consulting get_trial.

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?

The description reinforces the semantics of idempotency_key by explicitly saying to reuse the same key and payload on retry, and links acceptTerms to the prerequisite of user consent. However, it adds little specific meaning for the name parameter beyond what the schema pattern already provides, so it is strong but not maximal.

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 clear action: request a trial only when the user has requested it and accepted the terms. It also distinguishes this from related operations by explicitly saying it does not charge and does not upgrade, setting it apart from billing and upgrade tools like create_order and cancel_trial.

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 gives an explicit precondition: the user must have agreed to the terms at a specific URL. It provides timeout handling by directing the caller to read get_trial and retry with the same key/payload, and clarifies that this tool is not for charging or upgrading.

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