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

Annotations only declare destructive/idempotent/not-readOnly; the description adds the real behavioral story: activation degrades to a pending human approval request when no administrator-granted automation budget exists, revision or price drift causes refusal, and archive/restore are impossible here. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and constraint, then a clean when-to-use block. It loses a point for the trailing example sentence ('Activate this company using the reviewed price, or request approval if needed'), which restates the body and earns nothing.

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 destructive, gated mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the decision path (budget vs. approval), the failure modes (stale revision, price mismatch), and the operations it refuses to perform. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by binding the parameters to an upstream call: the revision and price must be the exact quoted values from get_company_billing, in the billing currency's minor units, and must never be guessed. That workflow-level coupling is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 ('Activate a company ... request human approval for activation') and immediately distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling by requiring a prior get_company_billing review. It also carves out what it is not: archive/restore and annual capacity purchases.

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?

Explicit when-to-use section plus negative guidance ('Never invoke this merely to read, enrich, import or qualify a company') and named alternatives (web panel for archive/restore, separate billing-admin action for capacity). The preconditions — reviewed quote, automation budget — are spelled out.

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