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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'idempotent' restates structured data rather than adding it. It does add the default-payment behavior (anonymous x402 vs authenticated balance), which is useful context beyond annotations, but omits the price cap, runtime bounds, and artifact limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the payment decision and ending on the action. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the parameter surface it must cover.

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 described. But for an 8-parameter, 4-required, nested-object job submission tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves most invocation-critical fields (price ceiling, runtime limit, artifact preferences, request payload shape) unexplained.

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, so the description carries the full burden. It explains only payment_rail's two modes and echoes idempotency; capability_id, request, schema_version, max_total_price, artifact_preferences, and maximum_runtime_seconds get no meaning beyond their names and patterns.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'submit one idempotent WaveEngine job', with a clear payment-scope statement. It does not name the adjacent siblings (estimate_wave_job, run_buyer_job, run_wave_example), so an agent must infer the distinction, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'By default' vs 'or explicitly use' gives real guidance on the payment_rail choice, which is the main branching decision. However, there is no guidance on when to run versus estimate first, or when this is preferred over run_buyer_job / run_wave_example.

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