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

The description discloses several key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it rejects unpaid/anonymous submissions, requires order_token (not session ids), derives customer identity from verified payment, and mandates that delivery resolution be selected before creative kickoff. These details add significant context not present in the annotations or schema, and there is no contradiction with the annotations. The description carries the burden well for a write operation.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and packs all critical usage constraints without redundancy. Every sentence adds value: the first covers the required inputs and token source, the second covers timing, payment requirements, and the alternative tool. This is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity (14 parameters, no required fields, minimal annotations), the description does an excellent job covering the essential behavioral and contextual aspects: payment requirement, token provenance, resolution timing, and alternative tool. It could mention follow-up tracking (e.g., via get_project_status), but that is not essential for selecting and invoking the tool. Overall, it is complete enough for correct usage.

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 schema has low description coverage (14%), so the description compensates by grouping project fields (product, goal, audience, channels, resolution, launch, links, constraints) and explicitly linking order_token to get_order and files to create_upload_url. It also clarifies that session ids are not accepted. However, some parameters like name, email, company, and package are not individually explained, leaving a small gap in semantic clarity for those fields.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Submit the creative brief for a PAID order'. It specifies the resource (creative brief) and the context (paid order), and differentiates from sibling submit_custom_inquiry by explicitly naming the alternative for unpaid inquiries. This is a specific verb+resource with clear sibling distinction.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it requires a paid order, requires order_token from get_order, and rejects session ids. It also gives an explicit when-not-to-use and alternative: 'for Custom Production inquiries without payment use the submit_custom_inquiry tool instead'. This fully satisfies the usage guidelines dimension.

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