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

Annotations only declare the generic write/open-world/non-idempotent profile, while the description adds high-value behavior: an immediate job id return, an asynchronous emailed quote (~15m), the S$390 pack price, the human-quote escalation path, and the payment prerequisite before work begins. This is exactly the operational context an agent cannot infer from the hints.

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 tight sentences, each carrying new information, with the identity and immediate return front-loaded before pricing and payment constraints. No redundant restatement of the tool name or schema, though the '$390 Pack' phrasing is slightly compressed.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return value (a job id) and the asynchronous email follow-up, plus cost and payment gating for a write tool. It is essentially complete for a submission tool, with only the absence of failure/validation behavior as a minor gap.

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%, so brief, email, and source are already fully documented in the input schema. The description only reinforces the email-first delivery model implicitly and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a private research job (Oxaide)') and names the product, which immediately separates it from read-only siblings like get_audit and list_audits. The scope ('private research job') is concrete enough for an agent to know exactly what is being created.

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?

Gives explicit downstream sequencing ('Pay with pay_audit before any work starts') and clarifies the pricing tier boundary ('Bigger than a pack is human-quoted fixed by email'), which routes the agent to the right follow-up tool. It stops short of saying when this is preferable to a cheaper sibling like lookup_ownership, so there is a minor gap in exclusion guidance.

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