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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds genuinely new context: the server sets the price, the order lands in a pending state, and buy scope plus an API key are required. It doesn't warn that repeated calls create duplicate orders, but the idempotentHint annotation already flags that.

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 short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and state, then workflow, then prerequisites. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 no output schema and only 33% schema description coverage, the description covers workflow and auth well but leaves the parameters and the shape of the created order largely unexplained. It is workable but has clear 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 only 33% (just 'requirements'), and the description adds nothing about gig_id, promo_code, or the requirements payload format. With a low-coverage schema the description is expected to compensate, and it does not mention a single parameter.

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 ('Create a pending order for a gig') and names the resulting state (pending), which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like start_order or place_bid, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 explicit downstream context ('Next: build_payment, sign and send the transaction, then confirm_payment') plus prerequisites ('Needs buy scope. Requires an API key.'), so an agent knows where this sits in the workflow. It never states when NOT to use it or how it differs from start_order.

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