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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses metering ('Metered like the HTTP diff') and the possible result statuses, but never states whether the call is read-only or whether outcomes like OVERRIDE_RECEIPT or CONFIRMATION-REQUIRED cause writes, nor any auth requirements.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The enumerated status list is long but carries real information rather than padding.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented nested object, the definition is only partially complete. The six outcome codes partially substitute for a return schema and metering is noted, but the shape of the 'order' input and the read/write semantics remain unexplained.

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% across two required parameters, one of which is an untyped nested object ('order'). The description only obliquely implies that 'order' is the order being diffed and 'ledger_id' identifies the target ledger; it provides no field-level or format guidance to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Diff an order against a ledger at intake') and enumerates the six possible outcomes, which distinguishes it from siblings like ledger_verify and ledger_execute. It stops short of 5 because 'diff' and 'at intake' are domain jargon left undefined, so an agent must infer the precise operation.

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 phrase 'at intake' implies a workflow stage where this tool applies, giving implied usage context. However, it never names an alternative (notably ledger_verify, which sounds overlapping) or states when this tool should not be used, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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