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

The description directly contradicts the annotations: it states 'Uses buyer-supplied information only; no external research or outbound actions,' while annotations set openWorldHint to true, implying the tool may interact with the external world. This is a clear contradiction. Additionally, the destructiveHint true is not explained, but the openWorld contradiction is sufficient to score 1.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add behavioral constraints and payment terms. It avoids fluff and is easy to parse. The payment and price details are relevant but could be considered secondary; still, the structure is efficient and well-ordered.

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?

Given 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is not complete. It does not clarify what should go inside 'input.brief' versus 'input.source_text', nor what the signatures and expiration fields are for. It mentions returning a draft for human review but omits important parameter context, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 elaborate on the parameters. It only says 'supplied business information' and mentions payment authorization, but it does not explain the required 'brief' or 'source_text' fields, the optional 'audience', or the purpose of result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, and payment_signature. This leaves agents without essential parameter guidance.

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-resource pair: 'Draft useful questions and answers from supplied business information.' It also adds the distinguishing behavior of 'marking answers that require confirmation.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like objection_responses or discovery_questions, even without naming them.

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 clear usage context: it is for drafting an FAQ from buyer-supplied information, explicitly notes that no external research or outbound actions are performed, and indicates the output is a draft for human review. It does not name specific alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is enough for an agent to select it over research-based siblings.

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