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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior: an immediate ingress receipt followed later by a case once a path is planned, plus the payment model (client pays the executor directly, AstraNL holds no money). It does not restate what happens if no executor is found or how the receipt should be polled.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return/payment behavior following. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does so at a high level (receipt now, case later). For a 7-parameter open-world mutation tool it is nearly complete, missing only practical detail such as how the receipt relates to check_task and what failure looks like.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only indirect context (the payment model bears on budget_cents) and no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 action and resource: solicit AstraNL to find and coordinate a verified executor for a physical task in the Netherlands. This is clearly distinct from the read/verify siblings (check_task, get_evidence, verify_astranl) without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the description's framing as the entry point that emits an ingress receipt, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to check_task for follow-up. The sibling tools are different enough in verb that ambiguity is limited, so this lands at minimum-viable rather than absent.

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