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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds substantial context they cannot convey: no execution, no quote, no proof verification, no persistence, and that existing product credentials and single-use action grants remain required for any downstream action. It explicitly discloses what is destroyed/omitted (nothing persisted) and its bounded, caller-supplied-data-only scope.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description repeats the same non-authority/non-payment boundary three times ('no payment, authority or delivery', 'No authority, payment, execution, proof verification, delivery or persistence', 'grants no authority'). Multiple sentences do not earn their place against that redundancy.

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?

For a moderately complex tool with a nested required object, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description should clarify parameters and what 'prepared steps' look like in the response. Instead it exhausts its length on redundant boundary statements and leaves both inputs and return shape opaque.

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% across 4 required parameters plus a nested, all-required constraints object (max_steps, three include_* booleans). The description says only 'explicit required fields' and never explains mode, agent_id, product_key, or any constraint flag, so it does not compensate for the documentation gap the schema leaves open.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare an ordered sequence of supported planning and computation steps with explicit required fields.' An agent can tell this is a planning/computation tool rather than a payment or execution tool. It is clear but leans on abstract jargon ('supported planning and computation steps') and does not name any sibling it contrasts with.

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?

It provides a boundary ('No step is executed, no quote obtained, and no payment...') which tells the agent when this tool is NOT the right choice, and notes that credentials/signed grants are required for any separate action. However, no alternative tool is ever named, and there is no positive when-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling rails (work-order-rail, escrow-lite, etc.).

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