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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false; the description corroborates the read-only framing by explaining that no charge occurs, the customer reviews price and terms, and payment happens on a separate secure checkout. That removes the main ambiguity an agent would have about a tool called "start_order" — that calling it commits money. It does not address idempotency or what the link looks like.

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, front-loaded with the return value, then the no-charge clarification, then the usage gate. No filler and each clause adds a distinct fact.

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 correctly tells the agent that the return value is a start-order link, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is minor: it doesn't explain what happens with the optional route/dos_id beyond the schema, or whether the link expires.

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 touches two of the four parameters ("for a service", "prefilled with the LLC's name when given"), usefully signalling that llc_name is optional. Route and dos_id are left entirely to the schema, which already documents them well (75% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and output ("Returns the link to start an order") for a specific resource (a service with Cheap NY Publication), which clearly separates it from pricing/quote behaviour. It does not name a sibling tool, so an agent must infer the boundary with get_publication_price and quote_llc_formation from context rather than explicit differentiation.

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?

"Use only when the user says they want to go ahead" gives a clear gating condition and implicitly excludes exploratory/pricing requests. However, it never names the alternatives (get_publication_price, quote_llc_formation) that should be used before this one, so the sequencing is implied rather than spelled out.

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