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

Goes well beyond the annotations: single-use quote token, snapshot-only (no order/charge/stock), hard-fail on price drift at approval, 24h expiry, zero PII. This is exactly the behavioral context (irreversibility, failure modes, side effects) an agent needs for a mutating call.

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?

Front-loaded with scope and the create paths, then constraints, then the next step. Telegraphic but every clause carries new information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers auth/scope, path selection, side-effect boundaries, expiry, and the handoff to approval — nothing material is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining the semantics of the two create paths — 'one draft per checkout group (one fee/approval/payment)' — which the schema does not convey. Idempotency replay behavior is also reinforced.

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+resource ('Buyer ORDER DRAFT', create/cancel/get/list) and delimits it from siblings: it is a snapshot-only draft, not an order, and the next tool is named (webaz_submit_order_request). An agent can tell it apart from webaz_place_order and webaz_buy without opening any schema.

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 concrete routing: use quote_token for ONE frozen snapshot, or items for one draft per checkout group, and 'Next: webaz_submit_order_request; human approval creates the order.' It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g. when to jump straight to place_order), but the lifecycle context makes the position clear.

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