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

Beyond the annotations, the description usefully discloses the 0.25 USD price, the requirement for explicit wallet authorization, and the fact that no external research or outbound actions occur. It also clarifies that the result is only a draft for human review, which is valuable context given destructiveHint=true. No direct contradiction with the annotations is evident.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core transformation and key constraints front-loaded. The price and wallet-authorization note are directly relevant and each earns their place.

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?

For a 5-parameter nested tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, cost, authorization, and output status. However, it omits return-shape details and does not clarify the unusual signature/idempotency/payment parameters, so it is not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently.

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, but it only conceptually references 'supplied deal notes' and wallet authorization without explaining the actual parameters: input.brief, input.source_text, result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, or payment_signature. This leaves an agent without enough parameter-level 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 states a specific verb ('Convert') and a resource ('supplied deal notes') and lists concrete outputs (delivery requirements, commitments, ownership, open questions, acceptance criteria). It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as requirements_extraction or scope_of_work_draft.

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?

It gives clear context: the tool is for converting deal notes into a delivery handoff draft, uses only buyer-supplied information, and should not involve external research or outbound actions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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