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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value on top: what the withdrawal actually does to the client-facing link, the confirm-gating pattern, and the paid-agreement precondition. It stops short of saying whether the agreement record is deleted or merely voided, or whether the action is reversible.

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 short sentences, no filler. The precondition and effect come first, the preview/confirm protocol second, and the paid-agreement exclusion last — a sensible front-loaded order for a destructive operation.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, prerequisites, effect and escalation path. The remaining gap is the post-state of the agreement itself (deleted vs. marked void) and whether a void can be undone, which an agent might reasonably want before confirming.

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 coverage is only 50% — agreement_id carries no description — but the name is self-evident as the target resource. The description supplies the meaning of confirm (leave false to preview, set true only after user consent), which is the parameter that actually needs semantic framing, and it does so consistently with the schema's own wording.

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 with its precondition: 'Withdraw an agreement that has not been paid.' It also describes the observable effect (the link tells the client it is no longer valid), which clearly separates it from agreement_draft, agreement_send and agreement_status.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: preview first, then set confirm=true only once the person has agreed. It also names the exclusion — a paid agreement can't be withdrawn here and must be handled via the agency's Stripe (refunds/cancelling) — giving an alternative path rather than leaving the agent to infer one.

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