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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds context annotations cannot: the agreement text is frozen on send, delivery comes from the agency's own white-label address or falls back to returning a link, and payment depends on Stripe being connected. That is exactly the added value expected on top of structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outcome in the first clause, then prerequisites. It is dense and slightly parenthesis-heavy ('(The agency can also press Send on the preview page.)', '(dashboard White label)'), but no sentence is filler.

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?

For a destructive two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, delivery mode, the returned-link fallback, the contact email requirement, the consent gate and the Stripe dependency. An agent has enough to call it correctly or to hold off.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for confirm: preview when false, real send when true, and only after in-conversation consent, which goes beyond the schema's own wording. agreement_id is left implicit ('a drafted agreement') with no guidance on where to obtain the id or what state the draft must be in.

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 and resource ('Send a drafted agreement to the client') plus the concrete outcome: text is frozen, the client gets a link to read, sign and pay. This clearly separates it from agreement_draft, agreement_update, agreement_status and agreement_void without the agent needing to open those schemas.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions and gating: needs the contact's email, previews first, sends only with confirm true once the person has said 'send' in this conversation. It also names an alternative path (the agency can press Send on the preview page) and the Stripe prerequisite for the payment leg.

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