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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value beyond those annotations by disclosing that the response preserves country-specific coverage, sources, freshness and limitations, and it warns that US federal tools never assert state good standing or the OFAC 50 Percent Rule. This is extra behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, with no obvious filler, but the term 'RunOnProof' is presented without explanation and the core action is missing. It is concise but obscure, so the structure/resourceening alone does not justify a higher score.

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 11 required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to construct prior_authorization, how to choose change_reason, what current_context should contain, or the nature of the vendor payment change. The description leaves out nearly all context an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter semantics. It references 'country' only conceptually, but the schema already constrains country to 'US', so it adds no meaning. The rich nested objects like current_payee, proposed_payee, current_context, and prior_authorization are completely unexplained in the 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 does not state what the tool does; 'Global RunOnProof tool' is an unexplained label and never explicitly says 'authorize a vendor payment detail change' or names the operation's verb/resource. It mentions response characteristics and a US restriction, which are contextual, not a purpose statement. The actual operation can only be inferred from the tool name.

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?

"Choose country from US" provides an implied usage context: this tool is for the US country variant. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling authorize_uk_vendor_payment_detail_change or state when not to use it. The US federal FEDERAL_ONLY note gives partial exclusion context but not a full alternative-selection policy.

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