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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the one-free-revision limit and the buy prerequisite, but omits permissions, side effects, error behavior, whether the request can be denied, and whether order state changes.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The phrase 'Kiosq guarantee' is somewhat opaque, but the sentence remains efficient.

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 request tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and prerequisite. It still leaves important caller-facing details implicit, such as what happens after submission and what response to expect.

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 50%: order_id is described as a UUID, while note only has length constraints. The description adds meaning by saying the request should explain what to fix, but it does not clarify order_id's role or the note format beyond the schema.

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: asking for a revision of a delivered service, with the limit of one free revision. It is clear enough to distinguish from adjacent actions like request_refund, though it never names alternatives explicitly.

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 implies usage after delivery and states the prerequisite '(requires buy)', giving some when-to-use context. However, it provides no explicit when-not guidance or comparison with siblings such as request_refund or accept_service.

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