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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the call returns quickly, dataset generation runs in the background, and the claim token is shown only once and is the sole way to read/download results — including the critical risk of losing the token. It doesn't cover failure modes or payment charge behavior, but the most decision-relevant behaviors are clearly stated.

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 with no filler: the first states the action and step, the second states the return value and async behavior, and the third delivers the critical warning in caps. The most important operational risk (claim token shown once) is front-loaded at the end with emphasis.

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 12-parameter payment tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational outcomes: dataset id, claim token, background generation, and the token's critical role in later retrieval. It doesn't explain which parameters must match the original quote or how webhookUrl interacts with the claim token, but the schema covers parameters and the flow is otherwise adequately explained.

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. The description adds relational meaning beyond the schema: quoteId is the quote obtained in step 1, paymentPayload is the signed payment data, and the other job parameters must be 'submitted again' — implying the full dataset configuration is resent rather than referenced. This is a useful semantic hint the schema alone does not convey.

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 opens with 'Step 2 of buying a training dataset' and names the action ('submit the job again') with the two key identifiers ('signed X-Payment payload' and 'quote id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling payment tools (create_endpoint_with_payment, purchase_product_with_payment) and from the preceding request_dataset_payment by positioning it as the second step.

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 'Step 2' phrasing and the requirement to include a quote id make it clear this tool is used after request_dataset_payment, though that tool is not explicitly named. It also explains the consequence of losing the returned claim token, effectively guiding the agent to use the token with status/retrieval endpoints, but it does not name get_dataset_status or list exclusions.

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