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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false/openWorld=true/destructiveHint=false; the description goes far beyond by disclosing that no payment is captured, that it only emits a link a human opens, the post-payment email timing (~24h), and what the customer ultimately downloads. This is the behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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 return value, and each sentence carries weight (payment behavior, delivery, plan restriction, May exception). The portal/download sentence is informational but slightly over-detailed for tool selection purposes.

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 9-param, no-output-schema, open-world creation tool, the description covers what is created, what is returned, and what happens afterward, which is the critical missing piece. It leaves gaps on parameter expectations (especially the required unlabeled enums and optional fields) but nothing that blocks correct invocation.

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 33% across 9 params, so the description must compensate and largely does not: it explains nothing about revenue_band, industry_vertical, company_name, company_website, or notes, and only lightly constrains 'plan' via 'Report plans only'. Competitor limits and the email purpose are already in the schema, so the description adds little param-level meaning.

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 ('Create a Mako Metrics order brief') and immediately defines the return ('a Stripe checkout link'), which is exactly what an agent needs to distinguish this from siblings like order_report or list_plans. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state the boundary with order_report, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 a clear usage constraint ('Report plans only') and an explicit alternative route for a different case ('For May, the Meta ads agent, send the customer to makometrics.com/meta-ads-agent'), which is genuine when-not guidance. No prerequisites or preconditions (e.g., what must exist first) are stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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