Order Extended Audio Description

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

Annotations already declare destructive=false? No — they declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the critical financial behavior ('will charge the credit card on the account when the order is ready'), the feature entitlement gate, the confirm requirement, and side effects (share access, notify people, incur provider charges). This is exactly the kind of beyond-schema disclosure that matters for an agent deciding whether to invoke.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence (card charge), followed by eligibility and confirmation requirements. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (billing) comes first.

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 9-parameter, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisites and consequences an agent needs before calling: entitlement, confirmation, side effects, and charge timing. It omits nothing critical, though it could note the order is asynchronous and trackable via get_order_status.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the language/AI constraints and payload nesting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns no bonus.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Orders an extended audio description for a media') and distinguishes this write path from the sibling read/delete variants by the order/charge framing. It does not explicitly name list/get/delete_media_extended_audio_description, but the name-plus-verb combination makes selection unambiguous.

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?

It gives real eligibility context: paid plans with the `order_audio_descriptions` feature, and a hard `confirm=true` gate for the mutation. It stops short of naming when to choose this over alternatives such as purchase_captions or create_localization, so it is context-rich but not fully routing guidance.

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