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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It covers rate-limit cost, latency, null/not-answerable behavior with reason, the optional receipt envelope, and the fact that it reads from the corpus. This goes well beyond the minimal read-only expectation and adds valuable operational context.

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 is well-structured with clear sections (Use this tool when, Inputs, Returns, Cost, Latency) and front-loads the core purpose. Every section adds information; no genuine fluff exists, though some sections could be tightened for extreme conciseness.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is unusually complete. It explains purpose, usage, inputs, return fields (tracking, tracker, checked_at, receipt), edge cases (null with reason, slug vs domain), cost, latency, and the single-lens relationship to fused verify. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains 'node' (path, required, domain or entity slug, not IP/ASN) and 'receipt' (query, optional, boolean that attaches a Receipt v1.0 envelope), including defaults and effects. This fully resolves parameter meaning.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb+resource: it is the tracker-lens verify surface producing a per-node verdict over named corpora (DDG Tracker Radar, IAB TCF, Disconnect.me). It also distinguishes itself from the fused 'POST /v1/verify' and cross-lens tools, making its unique role explicit.

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 has a dedicated 'Use this tool when' section with two concrete use cases, and explicitly contrasts with 'full cross-lens fusion'. It also states what is not indexable (IPs/ASNs), providing clear guidance on when this tool should be selected over alternatives.

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