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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds genuine beyond-annotation context: nothing is charged until the user pays, charging only occurs when the certificate is issued, the agent cannot review/consent/pay, and the returned token is private.

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?

Two tight sentences; the hand-off constraint and the no-charge guarantee are front-loaded, and every clause carries actionable meaning with no 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the key return values (approvalUrl, private token) and the charge timing. It could say more about the order lifecycle or what the token grants, but it covers what an agent needs to invoke and route the result correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents files, names, locale, and receiving_procedure thoroughly. The description adds nothing about individual parameters—its return-value detail (approvalUrl, token) is not parameter semantics—so 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 and resource ('Prepares an order for your user to approve and pay') and immediately distinguishes the outcome (approval flow, not immediate charge). An agent can tell it apart from quote_document and get_order_status.

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?

Makes clear the agent cannot pay or approve and must hand off approvalUrl to the user, and it names get_order_status as the follow-up consumer of the private token. It does not explicitly contrast with quote_document (e.g., quote first vs. order), so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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