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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the deposit cap (lesser of 25% or $1,000), that the deposit is a direct charge on the shop's Stripe account with chargeback and negative-balance liability, that state deposit/licensing/cancellation rules are the shop's responsibility, and that an agent-sent reply is presented to the customer as coming from the shop's assistant. It stops short of saying whether a reply is binding, retractable, or what permissions or failure modes apply.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and most sentences carry load-bearing constraints (deposit cap, Stripe charge, state rules, pricing immutability). The paragraph is slightly meandering, and the line 'Doing Work never sets or changes a price' is opaque to anyone who doesn't already know the product name.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with a nested lines array and an output schema, the description covers the highest-risk details an agent needs before calling: the deposit cap, who bears the charge, and the visit_first alternative to pricing. The unexplained message parameter and opaque 'Doing Work' reference are the remaining gaps.

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 description coverage is 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaningful deposit ceiling and the fact that lines are the shop's own worker-written prices, but message, shop_id and delivery_id get no treatment, and visit_first's meaning largely repeats the schema. Partial compensation only.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and object: answer a customer request with the shop's own quote made of lines and prices, or offer a visit first. That is enough to distinguish it from network_decline or network_claimGuestQuote by inference, but the description never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left to the reader.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you call this when replying to a request, and you set visit_first instead of lines when you want to look before pricing. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, nor a pointer to network_decline or network_claimGuestQuote as alternatives for rejecting or claiming.

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