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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses the premium/pay-per-call model via USDC on Base and the behavior of returning all findings at once with rule citations. It does not mention destructive actions, which is appropriate for a scan 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 concise, fitting in one dense sentence. It front-loads the 'PREMIUM' label and key mechanic. However, it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter usage, output format, and edge cases, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly without additional knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain the meaning of parameters like householdIncome, householdSize, creditScore, etc. It only mentions the event trigger, leaving 8 other parameters undocumented. This is a critical gap.

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 the tool's purpose: scanning all relevant spine verticals triggered by a life event, returning comprehensive findings with citations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like missed_credits_scan or hr_benefit_scan by covering multiple verticals simultaneously.

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 implies use for life-event-driven comprehensive scans but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternative individual scan tools. It provides context about the reversal mechanic but lacks clear when-not or alternative guidance.

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