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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the state machine transitions, the auth dependency on record_approval's edit_token, the meaning of the over_cap flag, and an explicit negative guarantee ('Does not move money'). Annotations only say non-readonly/non-idempotent; the description supplies the operational consequences.

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?

Five short sentences, each load-bearing: purpose, prerequisite, state effects, semantic flag, and negative guarantee, ending with the REST endpoint. Front-loaded and free of repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, and at least one response signal (over_cap). It leaves the success payload shape and any post-attach follow-up (e.g. release_job) unaddressed, which keeps it just short of complete.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema doesn't: where edit_token and receipt_id come from, and that over_cap reflects actual_amount exceeding the price cap. It doesn't add syntax detail for type/value beyond the examples already in the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Attach proof of delivery to a receipt') with the exact state transitions the call causes (approved→delivered, disputed→disputed). An agent can distinguish this from record_approval, verify_receipt, and release_job without reading any 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?

States the prerequisite clearly ('Requires the edit_token from record_approval') and the condition for the disputed branch. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing at an alternative tool, so it gives strong context but no exclusions.

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