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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile: not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by saying the design is attached to the user's order, no new design is created, and the result is a design id for create_proof.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with the effect, source, return value, and non-creation caveat front-loaded. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant explanation.

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 one-parameter tool with rich schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the key context: source tool, expected id shape, order-side effect, return value, and non-creation guarantee. It does not explain prerequisites such as having an active order context, but the core invocation information is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single example parameter. The description still adds a useful constraint by specifying that the id comes from show_examples and starts with bib-, reinforcing the expected identifier format.

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: putting a ready-made design from show_examples onto the user's order. It also distinguishes the effect from create_design by clarifying that nothing new is created, and it tells the agent the output feeds create_proof.

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?

The description clearly situates the tool between show_examples and create_proof and specifies that the input must be a ready-made design id starting with bib-. It implies the alternative of creating a new design via 'Nothing new is created,' but does not explicitly name when not to use this tool.

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