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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: 'takes no payment and creates no order; the order page asks its own questions and takes payment there.' It also reveals the return content and that goals 'travel sealed, not in plain words' — a privacy behavior not in the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence earns its place by dispelling the payment/order misconception. No waste.

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 compensates by describing what is returned (address, price, currency, one-line description). Between the description and 100%-covered schema, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents service enum, country default, and goals limits. The description restates the three services but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Returns the address of the Verateca order page for one of its three paid services (quick, full, review)'. It also enumerates the concrete return payload (address, price, currency, one-line description). No sibling (get_product, compare_products, check_stack) is about order links, so it is easily distinguished.

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?

Implied usage is clear (fetch the order-page address for a paid service) and it clarifies the boundary that no payment/order happens here. However, it never names when to prefer this over siblings or states any explicit condition/exclusion, leaving routing to inference.

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