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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds important behavioral details: financial permission is required, a five-minute confirmation token is returned, invoice costs are retained, and the change is not applied. These are exactly the operational constraints an agent needs before invoking a preview mutation tool.

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 three efficient sentences with the preview scope, permission requirement, and return behavior front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 rich annotations and lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value, permission requirement, token, and non-application behavior. The main remaining gap is that the single input parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 implies the input identifies one load, but it does not name the trip_number parameter or explain its format. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameter, and it only minimally does so.

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 action and resource: preparing removal of one load's operational revenue record while retaining invoice costs. It clearly distinguishes the preview behavior by saying it returns a preview and does not apply the change, which separates it from sibling mutation tools such as clear_load_revenue.

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?

It gives clear usage context by stating that financial permission and confirmation are required, and that the call returns a confirmation token rather than applying the change. It does not explicitly name the follow-up or alternative tool, but the preview/confirmation flow is strongly implied.

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