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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive. Description adds return field context (customer, subscription, etc.) but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or auth details beyond schema. With annotations covering safety, this is moderate added value.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Field list is dense but informative. Second sentence provides use case efficiently. No wasted words.

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 list tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose and return fields but omits filtering capabilities (status, customer_id, subscription_id) and pagination. Schema fills gaps, but description could be more complete regarding how to use filters.

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 86%, so parameters are well-documented in schema. Description adds no parameter details; baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Return' and resource 'Paddle transactions' with scope 'bounded'. Lists returned fields, which helps distinguish from sibling list tools like paddle_list_customers. Lacks explicit sibling differentiation but resource is clear.

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?

Provides a use case ('Answers which payments completed, remain past due, or were canceled') but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Implied usage is clear but no exclusions.

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