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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Show') and highlights the 'FREE' nature, which is relevant for a paywall-related tool. It doesn't discuss auth or failure modes, but for a zero-parameter read-only config check, the disclosure is adequate.

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 two sentences with no filler. The key qualifier 'FREE' and the resource are front-loaded, and the alternative-routing guidance is compact and useful.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and how it differs from relevant siblings. Nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information needed beyond the empty schema, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('inbound paywall config'), and lists concrete fields (enabled, price, network, Merchant payTo). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying it is not about historical money movement.

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 explicitly states when to prefer this tool ('when checking what callers must pay before tools run') and names the alternatives to avoid (get_cashflow/get_pnl) with the reason ('not historical money movement'). This gives clear routing guidance.

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