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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: it uses only buyer-supplied information, performs no external research or outbound actions, returns a draft for human review, and requires explicit wallet authorization for payment. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's safety and workflow profile. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 four sentences, each adding distinct information: core function, data scope, output nature, and pricing/payment requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, data scope, output, and payment flow, which is substantial for a tool with no output schema. However, it does not explain the meaning of several input parameters (e.g., idempotency_key, result_signature, payment_signature) or the expected format of the returned draft. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions 'supplied source fields' and 'target schema', which loosely maps to the 'input' object's 'source_text' and 'brief' fields, but it does not explain the purpose of 'audience', 'result_expires', 'idempotency_key', 'result_signature', or 'payment_signature'. The description adds some semantic context but leaves significant gaps for a 5-parameter tool with nested objects.

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 states a specific verb ('Map'), a clear resource ('supplied source fields to a target schema'), and enumerates the core deliverables: transformations, required validation, and unmapped fields. This distinguishes it from the many sibling content-generation tools, which focus on copywriting or research rather than structured field mapping.

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 clearly states the tool's scope: it uses buyer-supplied information only and performs no external research or outbound actions. This helps an agent know when to choose it over research-capable siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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