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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds material context: declared site authority remains unverified until a human verifier confirms it, NET figures are house references rather than executable prices, and nothing is recorded, posted, signed, reserved, or paid. These disclosures go beyond the structured annotations and are behaviorally important for the agent.

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 and the content is substantive, but the description repeats the free/keyless/no-signature point twice ('Free, keyless, moves no money' and 'Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign'). The long initial sentence also packs many concepts together, reducing clarity.

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?

The tool has a complex nested input and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key caveats around authority verification, NET references, and absence of side effects. It could be more complete by explicitly relating this preview to sibling tools such as provision_plan or prepare_place, but the core context is present.

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%, and the nested commission parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description provides only high-level framing of what the preview evaluates and does not add field-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('commissioning repeated upkeep at a real place'), and enumerates what the preview covers: governed work, authority, dated cycles, measurement, and NET requirement. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as provision_plan or prepare_place, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description implies this is a preview before commissioning and notes that it is free, keyless, and moves no money. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus prepare_place, provision_plan, or submit_place, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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