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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the auth requirement (configured X-Wever-Agent-Key), the cost model (item price + flat $8 shipping, $0 tax, no buyer API fees), the immutability of the intent, and the boutique quantity restriction. However, it never reconciles the 'Creates no payment or approval' / immutable framing with the destructiveHint=true annotation, which an agent will notice as unexplained tension.

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?

Roughly six short sentences, each carrying one distinct fact, with the core action front-loaded before cost, auth, and the follow-up workflow. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 no output schema, the description does tell the agent what comes back (an exact plain-language quote, a human review URL, and a customer_approval token for purchase-execute). It omits idempotency semantics and any pointer to wever_purchase-status for checking a created intent, and the referenced approval_mode is not a parameter an agent can inspect.

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 five required parameters, so the description must carry the load. It adds real meaning for two of them (quantity is effectively 1 per unique boutique catalog listing, and delivery_address drives the quote/shipping), but says nothing about idempotency_key, business_id, or item_id format or purpose.

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 ('Create an immutable purchase intent and exact plain-language quote') and immediately clarifies scope by noting it 'Creates no payment or approval', which separates it from wever_purchase-execute. An agent can tell what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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 gives an explicit branch: if approval_mode is customer_agent, obtain the customer's approval of the quote and address and then call purchase-execute with customer_approval; otherwise use the returned human review URL. Both the alternative tool and the routing condition are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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