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

Annotation Contradiction: The description states 'no external research or outbound actions,' while the openWorldHint annotation is true, indicating the tool may interact with outside resources. This directly contradicts the claimed isolation. The description does add useful context about payment authorization and draft-only output, but the contradiction undermines behavioral transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core function, followed by scope constraints and billing requirements. Every sentence adds actionable information, and there is no redundant 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 covers the tool's main behavior and mentions cost/payment, but it omits essential invocation details: how to populate the required nested input, what signing/expiry/payment parameters mean, and how results are delivered beyond 'draft for human review.' With no output schema and no parameter documentation, this is insufficiently complete for reliable agent use.

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 clarify parameters, but it only vaguely refers to 'supplied requirements.' It does not explain the required brief/source_text fields, the optional audience, or the purpose of result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, and payment_signature. Minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 specifies a clear verb-resource relationship: organize supplied requirements into a scope-of-work draft with concrete components (deliverables, boundaries, dependencies, milestones, acceptance criteria). It distinguishes itself from generic outline tools through SOW-specific terminology and the "draft only" qualifier.

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 makes clear what the tool does and the constraint that it uses only buyer-supplied information, so an agent can infer when it is appropriate. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the large sibling tool set, leaving selection to inference.

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