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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description usefully clarifies that this is a two-step flow with a human passkey signing and devnet test money rather than real funds. However, it never explains what is actually committed or destroyed, whether a session/token is needed, or whether re-running creates duplicate pre-orders — notable gaps for a destructive mutation.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and result. The parenthetical-style clause about the human passkey makes the sentence a bit dense, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description should cover the units/session parameters, the cost implication, and what state changes on approval. It only partially does, leaving the agent under-informed before committing funds.

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 coverage is 0% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the load and it doesn't: 'report' is vaguely echoed as 'an OPEN report', while 'units' and 'session' are never mentioned at all. An agent gets no guidance on units semantics (quantity, price implications) or the session parameter.

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 ('Prepares a pre-order') and resource ('an OPEN report'), plus what is returned (the passkey approval page). It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from nearby workflows like knos_ready or knos_task_submit.

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?

'ask your human first' implies the human-in-the-loop precondition and 'OPEN report' implies the report must be open, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus knos_ready or knos_cross, and no conditions under which not to call it.

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