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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits; the description adds significant behavioral context by explaining the returned orderUrl opens the designer pre-filled, creates no purchase or reservation, requires human checkout, and includes a free PDF proof. This goes well beyond the annotation hints and makes the tool's side-effect-free behavior concrete.

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 description is two dense, front-loaded sentientes. The first sentence captures the primary purpose and output; the second covers safety and usage constraints without wasted words. Every phrase contributes unique information.

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 no output schema and nested parameters, the description covers the return value (orderUrl), the follow-up workflow (human review and checkout), and the critical non-purchase/non-reservation guarantee. Combined with the fully documented input schema and rich annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds some useful semantic flavor—confirming that titles are the buyer's actual tab titles and that the build is live-priced—but doesn't fundamentally change the meaning of any parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the documentation weight.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and object: 'Compose a ready-to-complete draft order' with the key outcome being an orderUrl that opens Tabzoola's designer. It clearly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'nothing purchased' and 'reserves nothing', making the draft-only purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states 'Use after get_pricing_capabilities', giving clear sequencing guidance. It also communicates the appropriate context: when you want a human-reviewed draft with actual tab titles rather than a finalized purchase. It doesn't explicitly contrast with quote_price, but the draft-vs-purchase distinction is strongly implied.

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