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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclaiming what the output does NOT signify — not legal compliance, not underwriting approval, not production readiness — which prevents the agent from over-claiming on the returned checklist. No rate limits, prerequisites, or input-sensitivity notes, but the output schema covers returns.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose before the caveats, and no filler. The first sentence is a dense feature list rather than flowing prose, which is acceptable for a checklist builder but slightly harder to parse than a structured scope statement.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. However, for an 8-parameter, zero-coverage, zero-required tool, the definition leaves the agent guessing which inputs matter (billing_model? business_category?) and whether calling it with no arguments is meaningful. Adequate but with clear gaps in input guidance and sibling routing.

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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, yet the description mentions none of them by name and gives no format, default, or interaction guidance. The pair `settlement_currencies` vs `presentment_currencies` and the `target_markets` array (which references a 2-letter country pattern, despite the prose emphasis on UK/EU/EEA distinction) are exactly where an agent needs meaning added, and nothing is provided.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Build") plus a concrete artifact ("operational preparation checklist") and enumerates the domains it covers (policies, refunds, fulfillment, billing disclosures, currency, auth questions, reconciliation). The negative scope statements ("Does not collect documents") separate it from the application/document-handling siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly, so the agent must infer the split from `application_readiness` and `check_eligibility` on its own.

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?

Usage is implied by the exclusion list: no documents collected (use the application tools for that) and no legal/underwriting/production determination. But there is no explicit "call this when..." statement and no named alternative such as `application_readiness` or `assess_payment_setup`, so routing between the eight siblings is left to inference.

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