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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the cost model (1 token from the Quelta balance, 1 free token on a new account), the requirement to confirm with the user, the idempotency guarantee in token terms, and a 1–2 minute latency expectation. Together with destructiveHint=true this explains why the confirmation gate matters, which the annotations alone would not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then cost, idempotency and duration — the right order for an agent deciding whether to call. The output enumeration is dense and list-like, but every item is genuinely informative rather than 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so with a concrete inventory of what the agent gets back for both the page and store-scan variants. Cost, confirmation, repeat-call behavior and latency are all covered for a one-parameter, token-spending tool.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents check_id. The description's restatement that it must belong to a 'finished free' check or store scan adds a mild constraint but no format or sourcing guidance (e.g. where to obtain the check_id). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Run the full check on a finished free product page check or store scan', followed by a concrete enumeration of the deliverables (15 shopper questions, three-model answers, fixes, FAQ draft, JSON-LD; top-15 product visibility for store scans). This clearly separates it from siblings like check_product_page, get_product_check, scan_store_catalog and generate_product_schema.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (the free check or store scan must be finished) and a hard procedural rule: confirm with the user first because it spends a token. It also resolves the obvious repeat-call worry ('calling it again for the same check doesn't use another token'). It stops short of explicitly routing the agent against the similar-sounding sibling upgrade_to_full_review.

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