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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real value by enumerating the exact side-effect boundary (no write, claim, application, acceptance, payment or contact) and flagging that binding action is gated by human approval and BURSIA TRUST.

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 the action, followed by the binding-constraint caveat. No filler sentences; the enumerated list of non-actions earns its space.

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 purpose, side-effect boundary, and the approval gate; only explicit alternative-tool routing is absent, which is a minor gap for this complexity level.

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% and the single id parameter is fully documented with pattern and description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's phrase 'one paid WORKNET item' reinforces the parameter's intent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Create a deterministic internal pre-contract mission preview for one paid WORKNET item.' The word 'preview' and 'pre-contract' cleanly separate it from siblings like bursia_worknet_task and bursia_worknet_paid_tasks, even without naming them.

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?

Usage is implied (run this before committing to a paid WORKNET item to obtain a non-binding preview) but no explicit when/when-not or named alternative appears. The negative scope (no write/claim/payment) helps an agent infer boundaries but does not route to alternatives.

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