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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it usefully by clarifying that nothing is ordered or paid until the customer opens the link and checks out on the site — a genuine side-effect disclosure. It also adds a compliance gating workflow not visible in annotations. It omits link validity/expiry and what happens with invalid model numbers.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and contents, then adds the no-order-yet reassurance and the graded-unit prerequisite. The middle sentence about the customer's flow is somewhat conversational but earns its place by clarifying the deferred checkout behavior.

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 three-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description covers what it does, what is and isn't committed, and the required prerequisite dance. The only meaningful gap is that it never says what the link looks like or how long it lives.

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 100% and each parameter already carries its own description, so baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by explaining pricing for graded units and the causal relationship between graded_ids and condition_shown_to_customer, but adds no format or limit detail beyond the schema.

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 ('make a link') and concrete resource (website basket) with the exact contents that go into it (new items by model, or graded units by graded_id). It's clearly distinguishable from search_products/get_product, though it never names the sibling create_basket, so the agent must infer how those two differ.

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 selection rules: use models for new items, graded_ids for specific graded units priced at their graded price, and states the mandatory prerequisite sequence for graded units (show grade/condition, offer get_graded_photos, then set condition_shown_to_customer). It stops short of saying when to prefer this over create_basket or check_delivery.

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