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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that any submission is simulated, does not file a real appeal or change county records, and that a sandbox receipt is not county filing or external delivery. It also warns not to claim the draft is available until the order confirms its artifact is available, adding important mutation-state context not covered by readOnlyHint or destructiveHint.

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 main action is front-loaded and the operational guidance is organized around checkout, retry, and reporting states. It is longer than typical, but most sentences carry meaningful behavioral or safety information rather than repeating structured fields.

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 mutation's simulated nature, auth requirements, state-reporting expectations, retry behavior, and the distinction between sandbox completion and real filing or delivery. With no output schema, it still gives the agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool takes only one simple parameter, order_id. The description clarifies that both get_tax_sandbox_order and complete_tax_sandbox_order take only order_id and explains when to reuse the known order_id, though it does not add format or validation 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 and resource: checking a test payment for an order and making its draft PDF and receipt available once verified. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_tax_sandbox_order and start_tax_sandbox by describing which order_id-based actions each supports.

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?

It gives explicit prerequisites (owner:sandbox sign-in and completed test checkout) and directs the agent to show the test checkout link when payment is pending. It also specifies when to read the same order after checkout or an uncertain failure, and when to retry start_tax_sandbox with the original idempotency_key instead of creating a new one.

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