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

Annotations only declare the generic write/open-world profile; the description adds the economically critical behavior — prepaid charge, price credited toward the service if the client orders, and the exact payload returned (order number, price, payment instructions, status link). This is meaningful context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 dense sentences, zero filler: the action and its prepaid nature are front-loaded, preconditions follow, then the return payload and the sibling alternative. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the missing pieces: the consent/price preconditions behind the required booleans and an explicit summary of return values, so nothing essential must be inferred.

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 83%, so most parameters are self-documented. The description still adds meaning by tying contact_name/contact_phone and the two const-true booleans to real preconditions ('real name and phone', 'agreed that Pactum stores these details', 'accepted the price'), clarifying what those flags actually certify.

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+resource with scope: 'Book a 60-minute consultation with a Pactum lawyer, prepaid.' It immediately separates itself from request_quote by noting that quote covers a whole task rather than a consultation booking.

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 an explicit precondition gate ('Call ONLY after the user asked for a consultation, accepted the price, gave their real name and phone, and agreed that Pactum stores these details') and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it.

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