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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'This tool does not move funds' and explains the intended flow ('so the calling runtime can sign a payment and fetch it'), which is a critical behavioral trait for a payment-related tool. It does not cover other potential side effects like rate limits or auth, but the most important caveat is addressed.

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?

The description is not overly concise. The first sentence is clear and states the purpose, but the bundle explanation is verbose and includes as a run-on, and the final sentence about '?category=' is incomplete and confusing. The structural clarity suffers from the contradictory usage guidance.

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?

The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus report_payment_requirements, and the '?category=' reference is unexplained and likely erroneous. It does not mention prerequisites, error cases, or the exact structure of the returned URL and payment requirements, which are important for a payment-related flow. For a tool with no output schema, this omission is significant.

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?

The schema already documents id (including the 'bundle' option) and format, so the description adds limited new semantics. It does elaborate on the value of the bundle ('highest-value purchase', 'steep discount'), which adds context beyond the schema. However, the mention of '?category=' is confusing and not an actual parameter, detracting from the clarity.

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 clearly states the tool returns the delivery URL and payment requirements for a paid report, and explicitly notes it does not move funds. It distinguishes itself from siblings by implying it returns both URL and requirements, while the sibling report_payment_requirements likely returns only requirements. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative, so some inference is needed.

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 description provides specific guidance for using the 'bundle' id, but it is contradictory: it says to pass id="bundle" for the entire catalog, then later says 'For one theme only, pass id="bundle" with ?category=.' This is confusing and likely a mistake. It also does not mention when to use this tool versus report_payment_requirements or other siblings, leaving the selection criteria unclear.

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