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

Annotations already mark destructive/idempotent/not-read-only. The description adds concrete behavior: it spends prepaid credits, never signs x402 or funds the account, and instructs idempotency_key reuse. This goes beyond the structured annotations by specifying what the destructive action actually is.

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, each with a clear purpose: main action, idempotency retry rule, and behavioral boundary. No filler or redundancy; the description is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with 4 required parameters, a nested request object, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits parameter meaning (capability_id, request, max_total_price details), doesn't mention prerequisites or expected return behavior, and doesn't compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies idempotency_key explicitly and hints at max_total_price via 'spending policy.' The essential parameters capability_id and request are left unexplained, leaving the agent to guess the request shape and capability semantics.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Submit one catalog job within the account owner's saved spending policy.' This distinguishes it from siblings like run_buyer_job (buyer vs account) and submit_quantum_job/submit_wave_job (catalog vs other job types). The title reinforces the prepaid-credit aspect.

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?

Provides clear usage context: account owner's catalog job, prepaid credits, saved spending policy. Also gives a retry instruction (reuse idempotency_key) and states non-behaviors (never signs x402 or funds the account). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to pick this over run_buyer_job.

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