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

The description contradicts the annotations: it states 'no external research or outbound actions' while openWorldHint is true, and mentions 'returns a draft for human review' while destructiveHint is true. These conflicts undermine the reliability of the behavioral information. The description does disclose the payment and wallet authorization requirement, but the contradiction with annotations dominates.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by constraints and cost. It avoids fluff, though the price and payment note might be better placed in annotations or a dedicated field. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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 the tool's complexity (nested object, multiple optional parameters, payment signatures, and no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, or payment_signature, nor the expected output format. It also fails to clarify the destructive/open-world annotations, leaving critical operational details ambiguous.

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 must compensate for parameter explanations. It does not mention any of the five parameters (input, result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, payment_signature) nor describe the nested object fields (brief, audience, source_text). Without this, an agent cannot know how to construct the input or interpret the opaque signature/expiry 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 clearly states the verb 'Convert' and the resource 'supplied process notes' into specific structured elements (steps, inputs, outputs, owners, exception paths, handoffs). It also clarifies the scope (buyer-supplied info only) and the deliverable (a draft for human review). This is specific and distinguishes it from vague alternatives.

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 usage by specifying the input (process notes) and the output structure, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus similar document-processing siblings like document_summary or document_compare. The constraint 'no external research' hints at a bounded, input-only use case, but no direct guidance on alternatives is provided.

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