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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses a critical non-obvious behavior: if the commit fails, the draft and approval are consumed and a retry requires fresh ones. It also explicitly warns that it moves money, aligning with and reinforcing the destructive annotation.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: the primary action and precondition come first, then the money movement warning, then the crucial failure semantics. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive, money-moving operation, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the most important failure consequence. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It is slightly incomplete on parameter roles and alternative tools, but otherwise sufficient.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not map 'draftId', 'companyId', or 'approvalSessionId' to concrete roles. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, and the description mentions 'draft' and 'approval', but it adds no parameter-level detail and leaves companyId unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') with a specific resource ('sealed draft') and states the action's effect ('Moves money'). It also gives the precondition ('after the user approved it on their trusted device'), which clearly distinguishes it from drafting or approval-request tools among the siblings.

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 description clearly implies this is the final execution step after user approval, which tells an agent when to use it versus drafting or approval tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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