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

Annotations only cover the generic profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true). The description adds the actual side-effect routing that no annotation conveys: paid tiers transition to awaiting_payment while the free evaluation sample goes straight to Stockfilm's manual review. That is exactly the kind of post-call consequence an agent needs.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the action and its precondition come first, then the divergent outcomes. The cautionary constraint is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the prerequisite, the consent requirement, and both outcome branches. The one gap is failure modes, e.g. what happens if agreement_sha256 is stale or the order_token is invalid, which the agent must infer.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented (confirmed, legal_name, order_token, signer_name, agreement_sha256). The description's restatement of the approval conditions adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Accept the Dataset License Agreement') plus its scope ('for a quoted order on the buyer's behalf'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_dataset_agreement (read) and create_dataset_checkout (payment). An agent can place this step in the funnel without opening another 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?

Gives an explicit hard gate: 'Call ONLY after the buyer explicitly approves the tier, clip count, price, and the full agreement text.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it does not name alternative tools or describe the fallback when the buyer has not yet approved, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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