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

Annotations already show this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait: no charges are activated. However, it does not disclose what happens after draft creation, whether the draft persists, or what activation requires afterward.

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?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the main purpose and adds the critical no-charge qualifier. There is no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 six parameters, three required, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description provides only a narrow slice of needed context. Missing are field guidance, draft lifecycle expectations, and any note on return values or side effects.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain what 'capability', 'goal', 'cadence', 'currency', 'supplier_id', or 'amount_cents' mean. The word 'recurring' only weakly hints at cadence and amount semantics.

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 names a specific action ('Create'), a specific resource ('recurring-work draft'), and a key constraint ('without activating charges'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_order or create_referral.

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?

The wording implies the tool should be used for setting up recurring work without triggering billing, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling alternative or exclusion condition is named.

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