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

The annotations declare openWorldHint=true, implying the tool may access external resources, but the description explicitly states 'no external research or outbound actions,' which directly contradicts the annotation. This is a serious inconsistency.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose, followed by constraints and payment info. It is efficient and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

With no output schema and unclear parameter semantics, the description leaves major gaps: it does not specify what the draft format is, what the input should contain beyond 'product and buyer situation,' or how the payment flow works beyond a vague 'explicit wallet authorization.' It is incomplete for a paid tool with complex parameters.

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 mentions none of the five parameters (input, result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, payment_signature). It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation at all.

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 the tool develops a 'sequenced discovery-question guide' tied to the supplied product and buyer situation, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sales_call_script or testimonial_questions. The verb and resource are precise.

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 specifies constraints: 'Uses buyer-supplied information only; no external research or outbound actions,' which clarifies when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full guidance.

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