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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the result is a *draft* that is not an approved commitment until commit_schedule, which is the two-phase lifecycle an agent cannot infer from annotations. It omits auth/permission requirements, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The phrase 'Amounts later are minor units of that currency' is slightly awkward and refers to later tools rather than this call's parameters, but overall it is tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a non-idempotent draft-creating tool the description supplies the essential lifecycle context (draft vs committed) and the currency/unit conventions. Nothing critical for a correct invocation appears missing.

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 carries the full burden for four required parameters. It clarifies currency (three-letter code) and the minor-unit/freelancer-ownership convention for amounts, but says nothing about clientName, projectTitle, or the ambiguous 'reference' field, leaving half the semantics unexplained. Partial compensation warrants a mid score.

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 ('Start a draft deposit schedule') with an explicit scope ('one client project'), and names the sibling commit_schedule to mark the boundary between draft and committed. An agent can distinguish this from commit_schedule or record_deposit without opening a 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?

Explicitly frames this as the draft-creation step and points to commit_schedule as the action that turns figures into an approved commitment, giving clear sequencing context. It does not spell out when not to use it (e.g. when a schedule already exists) or other prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.

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