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

The description reveals key behavioral traits beyond annotations: deducting payment from a wallet, being a FINANCIAL + WRITE operation, requiring user confirmation, and being idempotent. These are valuable details not present in the annotations, which only show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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, each earning its place: the action, the optional tip, and the critical financial confirmation warning with idempotency. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no wasted wording.

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 two-parameter financial write operation with an output schema present, the description covers the action, the optional tip, the financial risk, the confirmation requirement, and idempotency. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 both parameters well. The description adds operational context around tip_cents ('donated to the school's PAC') but mostly repeats or reinforces what the schema already says. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Finalizes a draft order, deducting payment from the wallet.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like cancel_order or create_draft_order by describing the finalization action and financial consequence.

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?

The description clearly implies this should be called after creating a draft order and establishes a critical usage rule: 'always confirm with the user before calling.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the financial/write warning and draft-order context provide strong situational guidance.

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