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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries real weight and does add context: the call is paid ($0.005 via x402), uses POST to a named endpoint, is batch-oriented (1-100 orders), and requires live validation plus fresh provider quotes before payment. These are genuinely useful cost and precondition disclosures. Some phrasing ('Account snapshot provenance remains explicit') is too vague to convey concrete behavior.

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-loaded with the core action and outcome set, then payment and preconditions, then input conventions — a sensible order with no filler. A few sentences are telegraphic to the point of opacity, particularly the closing line about snapshot provenance.

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 three required nested objects, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description does supply the outcome vocabulary and payment/validation preconditions. It still omits how policy thresholds interact, what triggers INSUFFICIENT_DATA versus REJECT, and any output shape details, which an agent would need to act on results confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate for three deeply nested objects. It names the three top-level inputs, clarifies that the snapshot is timestamped and that orders are proposed (not executed), and states the decimal-string convention for money and quantity. It adds nothing about policy fields, snapshot fields, or the option-specific required properties, leaving most nested semantics to the raw 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 and resource ('Order and batch risk evaluation') and enumerates concrete outputs (PASS, REJECT, INSUFFICIENT_DATA, exact USD calculations, rule codes). An agent immediately knows this evaluates proposed orders against a policy. It does not name or differentiate from the only sibling, catalog, though that sibling's role is fairly self-evident.

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?

The description implies when to call it by listing required inputs (policy, timestamped snapshot, 1-100 orders) and prerequisites ('live instrument validation and fresh provider quotes are required before payment'). However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement of alternatives, and no explanation of what to do on INSUFFICIENT_DATA versus REJECT.

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