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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description aligns with them. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it enumerates every distinct fee combination and classifies them, which conveys the result shape beyond just 'audit'. It does not detail output formatting, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the tool name, the action, the scope, and the purpose efficiently.

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 tool with zero required parameters, the description provides enough context to understand what it returns and why it exists. The missing currency semantics and lack of alternative routing are gaps, but the schema partially covers seller_connection_id and the annotations cover safety.

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 coverage is only 50%: seller_connection_id has a description, but currency is undocumented. The description does not mention either parameter or explain acceptable currency values, defaults, or how the two parameters affect the audit. Since the description does not compensate for the schema gap, this dimension is weak.

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 specific verb ('audit') and resource ('settlement fee') and clarifies the exact scope: every distinct fee combination Amazon charged, classified into P&L buckets. This clearly distinguishes it from generic P&L summary or breakdown tools.

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 'verify nothing is misclassified or missed' implies an audit use case, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like pnl_expenses or pnl_breakdown, nor any exclusions.

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