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

Goes well beyond the annotations: the link creation itself charges nothing, payment happens on a returned page by a person, a confirmation with reference follows immediately, and delivery is normally by e-mail within five working days. It also discloses pre-call refusal behavior for unobserved domains, which annotations cannot express.

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 action and artifact, then prerequisites, cost, and fulfillment timing in a logical order. Slightly dense with some overlap between 'One to twenty domains' and 'Only domains are asked for,' but every sentence carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what is returned (a payment link) and the downstream flow (payment, confirmation with reference, e-mail delivery in five working days), plus terms and fee URLs. An agent has everything needed to call and set expectations for the user.

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 email, domains, and language with defaults. The description restates the one-to-twenty domain bound (also in the schema) and rules out purpose/matter fields, adding scope clarity but no new syntax or format detail.

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 precise verb and resource — 'Create a payment link for an evidence extract' — and defines exactly what the artifact is: everything the archive recorded on a domain, every observed day and file type, both witnesses, with seals and verification instructions. It also implicitly separates itself from capture/observation siblings by stressing it delivers what was already recorded and that 'only domains are asked for, never a purpose or a matter.'

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('use check_coverage first') and a when-not condition (a never-observed domain is refused by name). It stops short of naming the sibling tools an agent might confuse this with (order_capture, order_observation), so the routing guidance is clear but not fully disambiguating.

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