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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the call is billable, charged to the authenticated account, asynchronous, and accepts no file uploads. It also gives valuable idempotency guidance, telling the agent to repeat the exact same call after an ambiguous timeout because the gateway manages idempotency keys.

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 four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the critical confirmation rule, upload constraint, and idempotency retry guidance. Every sentence adds operational value with no 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?

For a billable async mutation with no output schema, it covers the critical operational context: billing, confirmation prerequisite, inline input, and safe retry behavior. It is slightly incomplete because it does not say what the agent should do with the resulting task handle or how to poll via the status/result siblings.

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 only 50%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It clarifies that phones is an inline array and ties product/count/estimated cost to the confirmation step, but it says nothing about country, product format, or quote_token behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource: it creates a billable, asynchronous bulk detection task and accepts an inline array rather than file uploads. It is clearly distinguishable from status/result/read-only siblings by implication, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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 a strong usage condition: submit only after confirming product, count, and estimated cost with the user. That clearly frames it as a post-confirmation step, but it does not explicitly name the quote or realtime-check sibling as the preceding tool or state when not to use it.

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