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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new context: omitted optional fields are cleared on the eventual set, no accounting bill/payment is created, confirmation is required, and the token expires in five minutes. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and lifecycle detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then clearing behavior, side-effect disclaimer, and return contract. No filler; every sentence supplies information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does cover the return value (exact preview plus token) and the non-persistence guarantee. Only the per-field semantics of the wrapped LoadRevenue object are under-described, which keeps it from a 5.

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 carries the burden. It usefully explains the flat_amount vs rate_per_ton+tonnage choice and the clearing behavior for omitted optionals, but says nothing about trip_number, currency, note, reference, customer_ref or customer_name, leaving much of the payload undocumented.

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 verb+resource (preview replacing a load's saved revenue) and makes the preview-vs-apply distinction explicit with 'does not apply the change'. It doesn't name the real sibling set_load_revenue, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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?

Clearly frames this as a preparatory step ('Requires confirmation', returns a five-minute token) so the agent understands the preview-then-confirm workflow. It never explicitly says when to reach for this versus set_load_revenue or preview_clear_load_revenue, leaving alternatives implicit.

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