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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes further: it enumerates the exact payload (input hash, counts, deliverable list, posted price, cheaper standalone alternative) and explicitly bounds what the tool will NOT do. For a preview tool with no output schema, this is exactly the missing context an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return contents, then the negative scope. Every sentence carries distinct information and none repeats the title or annotations.

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 a nested-object input, an enum, no output schema and read-only annotations, the description supplies the two things structured fields cannot: the preview-versus-execution framing and an explicit list of what is and is not returned. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is 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 100% and each parameter is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'when one workspace suffices' adds a little meaning to the tool enum choice, but it does not add syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource — validate caller-supplied Command Center/Control Tower input and return a delivery quote — so the tool is distinguishable from the paid execution tool it precedes. It does not name a sibling such as execute_paid_product explicitly, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives a clear context: use this to validate real buyer inputs 'before authorizing an expensive analysis.' Exclusions are present in the negative-scope sentence (does not return the paid analysis, verify receipts, sign or transfer funds), though no alternative tool is named for that follow-up step.

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