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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that it charges nothing, stores nothing, returns a single pre-filled link, requires repeating the email and waiting for confirmation before calling, and that order emails go to the Stripe payer email. This is rich operational context. It does not explicitly address idempotency or failure modes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The scope and prerequisites are front-loaded, but the text is dense and repeats the Stripe-payer-email point twice in different sentences, plus restates the before-calling confirmation. Some redundancy costs it points even though every part is topically relevant.

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 multi-step order handoff with no output schema, the description covers what is required, what to ask the buyer, the pre-call confirmation step, the downstream Stripe-and-Submit flow, and the exact return value (one pre-filled link). An agent has enough to drive the interaction end to end.

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?

With 80% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: it explains the numeric pack values and pricing (pack 10 €500 / pack 5 €300 with a ranked-variant escape hatch), the content the brief must carry (product, goal, market), and that the email drives Dossier/order delivery. These go beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Start an influencer vetting order') and immediately scopes it to creators the buyer already has, contrasting with the sibling that handles the no-creators case. An agent can distinguish it from book_find_and_vet and get_pack_options without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit prerequisites (pack, creators, brief, email), an explicit when-not routing ('If the buyer has no creators yet, use book_find_and_vet instead'), and a decision rule for pack size (5 or fewer → pack 5, more than 5 → pack 10). Nothing is left to inference about selection.

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