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

Annotations already declare idempotency, non-destructiveness, closed-world behavior, and non-read-only status. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it states the tool reserves the quoted job, returns a protected report token, and notably does not sign, approve, or submit the transfer, which is important for correct agent expectations.

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, front-loaded with the core action and outputs, and contains no redundant or filler language. It is appropriately sized for a tool definition and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the basic action, return artifacts, and an important boundary, but the tool has a complex nested input schema with low description coverage and no output schema. It does not explain how the protected report token should be used, what the transfer boundary represents, or how idempotency applies to the reservation, leaving notable gaps for a checkout-preparation tool.

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 only 25%, so the description would need to compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not meaningfully explain quoteId, buyerAddress, idempotencyKey, or the nested job contract; the phrase 'unchanged quoted job' only vaguely gestures at the job parameter.

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 names a specific action ('Reserve the unchanged quoted job') and concrete outputs ('one exact Base USDC transfer boundary plus a protected report token'). It distinguishes this preflight step from submission by explicitly stating that it does not sign, approve, or submit the transfer, which differentiates it from the settlement sibling.

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 implies usage after a quote exists and before settlement, especially through the negation that it does not sign, approve, or submit. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create_quote, get_report, or settle_checkout, nor does it list prerequisites or exclusions.

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