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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and clearly states the tool outputs a risk level (low/med/high), score, signals, and advice, and that it is a risk signal, not proof. It does not describe any side effects, required permissions, or rate limits, but the behavior is well-scoped and non-destructive.

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, front-loads the primary purpose and caveat, and efficiently covers the tool's logic and return values. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the return values (risk level, score, signals, advice) and the condition for the price check. It is nearly complete, though it does not mention error conditions or bounds for the risk levels.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it restates the price parameter's purpose. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('assess') and resource ('counterfeit RISK for a collectible listing') along with a clarifying caveat ('a risk SIGNAL, never proof of fake'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing its unique combination of signals (marketplace base-risk and price-vs-retail-median check).

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 usage when the item is a known collectible niche, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (recall_lookup, safe_check) or provide exclusion criteria. There is no guidance on when not to use it.

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