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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context by calling the budget 'bounded' and prepaid-credit, and states the required scope, but it omits what happens on budget exhaustion, how authorization can be revoked, and how terms acceptance interacts with the request.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the scope requirement immediately following. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain required legal terms acceptance, offer selection, budget/order constraints, or what the authorization result represents.

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 7 parameters and only 14% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining key parameters such as offers, expires_in_days, max_order_cents, accept_terms, or idempotency_key. Only 'agent' and 'budget' are loosely referenced through the phrase 'an agent's board-time purchases' and 'bounded... budget'.

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 (Authorize) and resource (bounded prepaid-credit budget for board-time purchases), which is clear enough to separate it from generic credit authorization. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like authorize_board_purchases or authorize_credit_spending.

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 required scope 'billing:authorize' is a useful precondition, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool versus quote_board_post_time, buy_board_post_time, or the other authorization tools. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than explicitly stated.

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