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

Adds substantial information beyond the annotations: per-stage price ($15 each), separate invoices, and the partial-failure rule that completed stages stay consumed if a later stage fails — directly reconciling the destructiveHint with a safer charge model. The source-verification instruction and the no-auto-transfer rule tell the agent what it must do between and after stages, which the annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences: purpose first, then the verification obligation, then the billing/partial-failure mechanics. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema, and the operative constraints are front-loaded rather than buried.

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?

Covers cost, ordering, partial failure, and grounding obligations for a destructive, paid, nested two-stage tool with no output schema. One ambiguity remains: `stageInputs` requires both stages up front while the text describes passing generated output from stage one into stage two, and no explanation of how the stage-one result is surfaced to the caller before stage two is paid for.

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's cost/sequencing model gives real meaning to `maxChargeUsd` and `paymentInvoiceIds` (per-stage keys matching the two stage names), beyond their terse schema descriptions. It says nothing about the required `consentExternalProcessing` gate or the `idempotencyKey` semantics, but the schema covers both, so the 60% coverage gap is largely absorbed.

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 concrete two-step operation: build a source-grounded category brief from buyer-supplied evidence, then feed that context to a negotiation coach. The explicit sequence 'knowledge → negotiation' distinguishes it from the sibling workflows whose first stage differs (meeting_to_negotiation, renewal_to_negotiation, supplier_risk_to_negotiation).

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?

The fixed stage ordering and the caveat 'No atomic bundle charge or automatic transfer' make the calling contract clear, and 'Verify every generated point against the original sources before use' signals a post-call obligation. It never states when to choose this workflow over calling `knowledge` and `negotiation` individually, or over `supplier_risk_to_negotiation`, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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