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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and condition; it does not mention what the call returns (presumably the key), whether it is read-only, any prerequisites beyond payment, or possible side effects. This is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it omits necessary details that are scored elsewhere.

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 a completely undocumented parameter, the description provides only the high-level purpose. An agent lacks the information needed to invoke it correctly, such as what order_id means and what response to expect.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'order_id' parameter at all. It does not clarify what an order_id is, how to obtain it, or any format expectations, leaving the agent to guess.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('collect') and resource ('TITAN API key') with a condition ('after paying (status=settled)'). This distinguishes it from sister tools like titan_order or titan_generate by implying it is the settlement step, but 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 gives an explicit trigger condition: use after payment when status=settled. This is clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it offers no exclusions or explicit alternative routing.

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