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

Annotations only flag it as a non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds real context: it resets to the configured limit (default 5), touches only the count, sends no email, and requires a Cotlet API key with app access. It also notes the call notifies no one so no confirmation is needed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layers scope, side-effect, and auth details. Each sentence earns its place, though the phrasing is slightly verbose ('The call reaches no one, so it runs without asking').

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 and a single required param, the description covers the mutation's scope, side effects, auth requirement, and confirmation behavior adequately. A brief note on the return value would make it fully complete.

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 100% and the single order_id param is documented there ('Order ID from list_orders'). The description adds no further parameter syntax or meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (reset) and resource (a buyer's download attempts/credits) and explains the effect precisely: it sets credits back to the store's Download Limit. An agent can distinguish it from payhip_resend_receipt and payhip_get_order immediately.

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?

Names the sibling it is not for ('does not email the buyer; call resend_receipt for that'), giving a clear selection condition. It lacks an explicit when-to-use trigger (e.g., a buyer reporting exhausted downloads), so it falls just short of 5.

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