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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that the checks are computed 'live for the connected seller' and what categories of limitation it surfaces, though it does not describe the shape or detail level of what comes back.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first scopes the purpose and its four checks, the second carries the usage rule. The opening clause is front-loaded, though the enumeration in the first sentence is dense.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description has to carry the return semantics itself, and it does list the categories of information returned. It stops short of explaining how those limitations are presented or ranked, which would fully close the gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument invocation scoped to the connected seller.

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 names a specific, unusual resource — the data-quality limits of this account — and enumerates the four things it reports (unrecorded costs, unposted orders, invisible ad spend, structural limits). No sibling tool does anything comparable, so an agent can route here without ambiguity.

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 states an explicit trigger ('Call this BEFORE drawing conclusions from the other tools') and a second conversational trigger ('whenever the seller asks how much to trust the numbers'). The 'before other tools' ordering is exactly the kind of sequencing guidance an agent needs.

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