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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), it discloses 'Single-use; never replay', a non-obvious behavioral constraint, and clarifies the response style: 'Replies: results, not approval handles/JSON/debug'. This adds value not present in structured data.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: precondition+action, usage constraint, response contract. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple (one param, output schema exists); the description covers purpose, precondition, token origin, replay risk, and response behavior. Combined with annotations and output schema, nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining the parameter's source and format: 'exact pd_confirm_* from products_delivery_pause_prepare'. It tells the agent what value to supply and where to get it, exceeding what the bare schema name/type provides.

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?

Description states a specific action: 'pause product-family delivery' with a specific precondition ('After user approval') and token provenance ('with exact pd_confirm_* from products_delivery_pause_prepare'). This clearly differentiates it from the prepare and deny siblings.

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 conveys when to use by requiring 'After user approval' and the token from prepare, but it does not explicitly name the deny alternative or state when not to use. The context is clear enough for a confirm step, but it lacks an explicit exclusion or alternative reference.

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