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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds the material facts an agent cannot infer: real money leaves the wallet, only the delta over the previous fee is charged, and the amount replaces rather than supplements the earlier fee. The pre-acceptance time window is also a behavioral constraint not encoded anywhere in the schema.

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 cost warning is front-loaded in the first two words, followed by purpose, timing constraint, financial mechanics, and currency. Every sentence carries non-redundant information and the endpoint is appended last.

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 3-parameter money-spending mutation, the description covers purpose, timing window, charge mechanics, currency unit, and the API route. With no output schema, the absence of return-value detail is acceptable given how thoroughly the action's consequences are described.

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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description does add one real semantic layer by specifying the amount is in the market's currency and pointing to priceBreakdown.currency, but it does not clarify order_id or confirm beyond the schema's own text.

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 and resource ('add a priority fee (tip) to an order') plus the intent ('to attract a driver'), which no sibling tool shares. The leading 'WRITE, SPENDS MONEY' tag immediately separates it from read tools like lalamove_get_order and lalamove_track_order.

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 a clear precondition window ('Only possible before a driver accepts the order') and a constraint on the value ('must be higher than' the earlier fee). It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. cancel vs. re-place) for the case where the window has closed, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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