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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states the action and precondition, but does not disclose whether collection is idempotent, what happens if the order is unpaid, whether the key is returned, or whether the key becomes invalid after collection. This is a significant transparency gap for a non-annotated tool.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. It earns its place, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in behavioral and parameter detail.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description gives the essential trigger condition and identifies the relevant parameter, making it minimally viable. However, with no output schema or annotations, it does not describe what the tool returns or what success/failure looks like, so completeness is only partial.

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. It implies that order_id identifies the order whose API key should be collected, but it does not explain where to obtain it, its format, or how it relates to the settled status. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond that.

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 names a specific operation ('collect your ECHO API key') and a precondition ('after paying (status=settled)'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like echo_order by focusing on key collection rather than ordering or voice generation, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 when to use the tool: after payment and only when status is settled. This is a clear usage condition, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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