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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It mentions that it checks before paying thorough details of modes and refusal reasonage parts of behavior but lacks full transparency because it doesn't detail side effects (e.g., does it reserve anything?), whether it's read-only, or any rate limits. It adds value by describing the modes and that underspecified shots are refused, but misses a lot of behavioral context.

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 concise, using a single sentence to convey the core purpose and exceptions, followed by a terse enumeration of modes. Every word earns its place, front-loading the most important information (saving money) and avoiding fluff.

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?

Given the complexity (nested objects, multiple modes, 7 params) and the lack of an output schema, the description does a good job of covering the essential behaviors: how to use it, the modes, and the refusal mechanism. It doesn't describe return format, but that is expected since no output schema is given and the description states what it returns (price/lead time/refusal). It's a complete picture for an agent to call correctly.

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 describes most parameters with 86% coverage, including descriptions for mode, shots, license, location, and declared_purpose. The description adds some context (e.g., modes, refusal of underspecified shots) but mainly repeats what the schema says. It does clarify that 'hours' is for watch, and 'shots' is for capture, which adds slight value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: to check feasibility before paying, providing price and lead time, and refusal reason. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the pre-payment check step, and it lists the three modes. It doesn't explicitly compare to siblings, but the context of 'call this first' implies it precedes 'order' and is distinct from 'capabilities' and 'mission_status'.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first' before paying, which indicates when to use it. It also implies that if feasibility is refused, you should not proceed to 'order'. It defines the modes and their parameter requirements, effectively distinguishing when to use each mode.

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