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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the data source (MerchantFlow) and anomaly categories, but it does not disclose operational details like ordering, pagination, or limits; these are partially mitigated by the output schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical examples add valuable specificity without bloating the description.

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 simple read-only query with two optional params, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It could be slightly stronger with a note about when to use it versus sibling anomaly-adjacent tools, but nothing critical is missing for a correct call.

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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which fits the baseline of 3.

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 clear resource ('recent anomalies detected by MerchantFlow') with concrete examples that define what counts as an anomaly. It is specific enough to separate this tool from generic getters, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling reporting tools like get_recent_activity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor are any exclusions or related tools mentioned. The description only restates the action, leaving the agent to infer when 'get anomalies' is the right call relative to the many sibling reporting tools.

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