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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose material behavior beyond the schema: price points, delivery format (26-file .zip), settlement terms ($1,490 Net-15 Wire/ACH after technical checks), and Monero verification within 24h. What it omits is equally important: what happens after the call (order confirmation vs. account creation), whether the call is idempotent, and any explanation of the four unexplained tiers in the enum.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with nested parentheticals and multiple 'or' clauses, which makes it hard to parse even though every clause carries commercial information. Front-loading the verb is good, but the tier list would be far clearer as separate statements.

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 7-parameter, unannotated, no-output-schema creation tool, the description covers the commercial essentials but leaves the agent guessing about post-call behavior, the required domain field, and the majority of the tier enum. It is minimum viable rather than 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 coverage is 71%, so the schema already documents most fields including optionality of company_name and contact_email. The description adds useful meaning by tying tier_slug values to price structure and payment route, but leaves domain (the only required parameter), notes, preferred_stack, and x402_agent untouched.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create an ASO Studio order') and then explains the tier choices with concrete terms. It does not differentiate from siblings such as generate_starter_aso_router or probe_domain_aso_score, so an agent must infer that this is the transactional path rather than the analysis path.

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 selection criteria between tiers (instant $49 download vs. $0-upfront reserved engagement settled later vs. Monero verification), which implicitly tells the agent which tier fits which buyer. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools, and four of the six tier_slug enum values are never mentioned.

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