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

With no annotations this description carries the full burden, and it discloses the most important fact: the tool is not live and only records a waitlist entry, so the agent won't misrepresent the outcome to the owner. It also flags the conditional email consent and what the response provides ('tells you what the owner can do today').

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 sentences, all load-bearing: capability first, the critical 'not live yet' caveat second, invocation cue last. Slightly dense in the middle sentence but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by saying the tool reports what the owner can do today. For a 3-optional-parameter tool, the main remaining gap is that the meaning of 'amount' is unexplained, but the crucial non-obvious behavior is covered.

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 67% — owner_email and how_paid_now already carry descriptions, while amount is undocumented in both places. The description adds no syntax or meaning for any parameter beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (asks PaidRouter to set up the cheapest route) and explicitly contrasts it with reporting-only siblings via 'instead of just reporting it'. The actual behavior (waitlist recording) is named, so an agent can tell it apart from cheapest_way_to_get_paid and explain_fees.

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 concrete trigger phrases ('just switch me', 'do it for me') plus the negative framing 'instead of just reporting it', which implicitly routes informational requests to siblings. No explicit exclusion by name, so it stops 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.