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

Goes well beyond annotations: it discloses that the call creates no obligation, no timeline, and no assurance of addition, that the response is always 'received' with 'guarantee: none', and that a human reads the reason. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the request-not-instruction framing, then the outcome. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully describes the return ('received', 'guarantee: none') and the downstream process, so an agent knows both what to send and what to expect.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the reason is required and is read by a person, framing it as human-facing prose rather than a machine field.

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 ('suggest that a domain be observed') and frames the action as a non-binding request. It implicitly separates itself from order_capture, but never names the sibling or explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

Explains what happens after the suggestion (criteria, operator decision) but never says when an agent should prefer this over order_capture or the other siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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