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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the anonymous-vs-verified-owner authentication split, the explicit 'A capsule grants no financial authority' safety boundary, and the three output surfaces (JSON, Markdown fallback, hosted HTTPS view).

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information (outputs, auth model, safety boundary), with the action front-loaded. Slightly dense jargon and the ambiguous word 'Candidate' cost it a point but there is little waste.

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 sensibly names the return surfaces (rich JSON, Markdown fallback, hosted HTTPS view) and covers auth and safety expectations. The only material gap for a 3-parameter tool is the undocumented idempotency_key.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It echoes the four view values ('plan, comparison, route or order') and references resource_id when describing draft reads, but never explains the idempotency_key on a read-only tool, and the view values are already present in the enum, so the net additive value is limited.

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 specific verb and resource set: 'Resolve a supply plan, comparison, route or order presentation into... rich JSON, Markdown fallback and hosted HTTPS view.' An agent can tell it produces rendered presentations, but it never contrasts itself with lookalike siblings such as evuun_get_service_inquiry or evuun_get_capability_task, and the term 'commerce capsule' remains unexplained.

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?

There is conditional context (public plans anonymous vs private quotes/orders requiring verified owner auth) but no statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no routing to a sibling. The single clause 'Candidate also reads the same public durable draft by resource_id' hints at an alternate read path without clarifying the choice.

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