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

The description discloses key runtime behavior: it returns immediately, the work continues beyond the call, settlement is from the connected balance with a hard ceiling, and stale or changed plans are refused. It also notes idempotency explicitly ('Starting the same approved plan twice gives one job'), reinforcing the idempotentHint annotation without contradicting any annotation.

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 description is longer than average, but every sentence earns its place for a safety-critical execution tool. It front-loads the purpose and then layers authorization, side effects, follow-up actions, failure modes, and idempotency in logical order without filler.

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?

Given the tool starts real work with financial consequences, the description covers approval requirements, authorization scope, settlement limits, refusal on stale plans, job lifecycle, and idempotency. The output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is unnecessary; the immediate job-id behavior is already stated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds critical meaning for plan_token by explaining it is the signed authorization containing version, hash, and price ceiling, which goes beyond the schema's type-only description. The optional `from` parameter is not discussed, but the schema covers it adequately.

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 opens with 'Start the plan the user approved, and return the job that runs it', which names a specific verb, resource, and return value. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like apiosk_plan (plan creation), apiosk_job_status (observation), and apiosk_cancel_job (termination).

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 explicit conditions: 'Call this only after a person approved that exact plan, and never to explore.' It also tells the agent what to do if the plan changed or quote expired (run apiosk_plan again and get new approval) and how to follow up using job status, resolve, and cancel tools.

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