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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It openly states that this is a free taste, that the paid endpoint costs $0.25, and that CVD/session levels are redacted, giving a realistic expectation of limitations. It does not mention rate limits or output specifics, but it is sufficiently transparent for a preview tool.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that covers the free nature, the paid endpoint and cost, the included data, the redactions, and the evaluation purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. The minor oddity of 'gear' (possibly a typo for 'data') does not impair understanding.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema preview tool, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the source endpoint, what data is included and redacted, and why an agent would use it. It lacks explicit output format or usage limits, but these are not critical for invocation, making the description adequately complete.

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, making the input schema empty. The description appropriately avoids parameter details since none exist, and no additional parameter semantics are needed. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools.

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 states that this tool provides a free preview of the paid /api/order-flow endpoint, specifying what is included (real price and volume) and what is redacted (CVD/session levels). It distinguishes itself from other preview tools and the paid call_paid_endpoint by naming the specific underlying endpoint and its cost.

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 phrase 'Evaluate before paying' explicitly conveys the primary use case: to assess the paid API before committing a fee. It implies that the full version is available for payment, though it could more explicitly name an alternative like call_paid_endpoint for full data. The intent is clear, but the exclusion is not explicit.

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