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

The description adds substantial behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations: it declares the tool relies only on supplied information, performs no external research or outbound actions, returns a draft rather than a final deliverable, and carries a specific price with explicit wallet authorization. This is especially valuable given the payment side effect implied by destructiveHint.

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?

Four short, purposeful sentences are front-loaded with the core action, followed by constraints, return type, and cost/authorization details. There is no filler or repetition.

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 lists the output sections and notes the draft-for-review nature, but there is no output schema and the parameter behavior is largely undocumented. An agent cannot determine from the description how to populate brief, source_text, audience, payment_signature, or the signature/expiry fields, nor exactly what the returned draft looks like.

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 only vaguely gestures at 'supplied opportunity notes' and 'wallet authorization.' It does not explain brief versus source_text, audience, result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, or payment_signature, which is a significant gap for a paid, multi-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Summarize supplied opportunity notes' into clearly enumerated output dimensions (need, fit, constraints, stakeholders, risks, next actions). This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from the many sibling summary/outline tools, even without naming 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 clear usage context: it applies only to buyer-supplied opportunity notes, excludes external research or outbound actions, and produces a draft for human review. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, but the boundaries are clear enough for an agent to choose this tool appropriately.

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