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

With zero annotations, the description still discloses three useful traits: the result is a draft only, the creditor must sign and file it personally, and the x402 payment gate is a non-functional stub. It does not say whether anything is persisted, what form the output takes (text/PDF), or how the 27 inputs are validated, which matters for a document-generation tool with no safety 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable and followed by the practical caveats. The stub-payment note is slightly meta but is genuinely useful information rather than 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 27-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema document generator, the description leaves major gaps: no indication of the return format or what the draft contains structurally, no guidance on which of the 23 optional fields are needed for a valid Form A, and no statement about whether data is stored or repeated calls reuse prior inputs.

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 41% across 27 parameters, so the description should compensate, but it mentions no parameters at all beyond a passing reference to 'fee info'. Key fields such as lawCountry (drives late-payment law and the Polish EUR/PLN rate), courtCountry, dueDate vs receiptDate fallback, and debtorType are documented only partially in the schema and not at all in the description.

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 artifact: prepare a DRAFT European order for payment (Form A, Reg. 1896/2006) for a cross-border claim, plus the appendices (court note, fee info, filing guidance). The scope is clear enough to distinguish it from calc_claim, draft_reminder and get_status, though no sibling is named 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?

The 'cross-border claim' scope and the note that 'the creditor signs and files it themselves' imply when the tool applies and warn that the output is not a filed document. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to calc_claim (amount calculation) or draft_reminder (pre-litigation step), which an agent would need for these closely related siblings.

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