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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world, so the description's job is to add nuance — which it does: it discloses that no order is placed until the buyer pays on welltolddesign.com, and that 'sample: true adds a single unit'. It does not explain why idempotentHint is false or what the link's lifetime/cart-side effects are, so it stops short of full behavioral coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and ending with the reassuring no-charge-until-payment fact. The 'sample: true adds a single unit' fragment is dropped in mid-paragraph and reads as an afterthought rather than being grouped with the other input semantics.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully substitutes by saying the output is a cart link, and it explains that nothing is ordered. However, for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage it leaves contact_email undefined and omits the single-item array limits, so an agent could construct an invalid invocation from the description alone.

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 carry parameter meaning. It covers 'sample' and frames design_ids as 'an approved design' at the buyer's 'quantity', but it never explains contact_email and never warns that design_ids and quantities are capped at exactly one item each (minItems=maxItems=1), a constraint an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: 'Builds a welltolddesign.com cart link that adds an approved design at the buyer's quantity'. The result is unambiguous, and no sibling (save_design, generate_proof, get_quote, show_products, upload_logo) produces a cart link, so the boundary is clear without naming 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?

'Used by the quote card's and proof viewer's buttons' tells the agent where the tool is triggered in the product, which implies context, but it is not a directive about when to call it. There is no explicit when-not-to-use and no named alternative; the 'approved design' phrase hints at a prerequisite (design must be approved first) without stating it.

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