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

The description discloses important behavioral constraints beyond the annotations: 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 the 0.25 USD fee. This provides strong context around the readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and payment implications without contradicting 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by short, relevant constraints, output format, and pricing. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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 is strong at the selection level—purpose, constraints, output, and price are clear—but incomplete at the invocation level because there is no output schema and no parameter-level documentation. The agent still lacks guidance on how to structure the input object and what result-related fields mean.

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 full burden of explaining parameters, but it does not map behaviors to individual fields such as input.brief, source_text, audience, result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, or payment_signature. It gestures at 'supplied business examples' and 'wallet authorization,' but an agent would still need to infer how to populate several required or meaningful fields.

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 deliverable: a non-overlapping label taxonomy built from supplied business examples, including definitions and ambiguous-case rules. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like text_classification or entity_extraction, which perform classification or extraction rather than taxonomy design.

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 implies when to use the tool through phrases like 'from supplied business examples' and 'no external research,' but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to prefer this over related tools such as schema_suggestions or field_mapping. Usage context is clear, but exclusion guidance is absent.

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