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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels: it states the non-refundable deposit, card being saved, balance charged upon completion, final price confirmed after scoping, and the return of checkout_url and order_id. This thoroughly informs the agent of side effects and required follow-up actions.

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?

The description is two sentences and every sentence contributes necessary information: pricing and deposit terms in the first, payment flow and follow-up in the second. It is slightly dense due to the price list, but it contains no filler, so it remains appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the deposit mechanics, pricing, what is returned (checkout_url and order_id), and the next step to check order status. An agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly and manage the follow-up workflow.

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% with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping service_type enum values to specific prices (e.g., 'intelligence audit $410'), which helps the agent select the correct service package. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Selected service package' description.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Reserve a Northside Intelligence service project') and its resource, and includes specific pricing for each service type, making it distinct from sibling tools like ni_order_status or ni_store_order. It also explicitly names the follow-up tool, further clarifying its role in the workflow.

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 description gives clear context for when to use this tool (to reserve a service with a deposit) and directs the agent to ni_order_status after payment, but it does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond that follow-up step. The workflow instruction is helpful, yet the 'when-not-to-use' guidance is implied rather than stated.

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