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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the free allowance and its per-wallet keying, the quota of 100/day, and precisely what is and is not returned (no shares, no group existence, no counts). It stops short of describing the actual response shape or error/quota-exhaustion behavior, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding, and the free/rate-limited framing is front-loaded before the return-value caveats and the pointer to the paid sibling. Every clause carries information the agent needs to choose and call the tool.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost, quota, inputs, exclusions, and the paid alternative. The remaining gap is the concrete shape of the assessability result, but the high-level contract ('whether each part of the report is assessable') is sufficient to decide whether to call it.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the 200-tool and 262,144-byte limits and the in-memory-only guarantee. The description adds only that 'caller' keys the free allowance and is required on the pre-check only, which is largely a restatement. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('split-profile pre-check of one submitted catalogue') and immediately scopes it against the sibling: this is the free assessability-only version, while 'the full signed report is the paid split_profile_check call'. An agent can distinguish it from split_profile_check and split_profile_criteria without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the explicit when: free, rate-limited to 100/day per wallet, requiring the caller argument. It also names the alternative (split_profile_check) and the condition that selects it (when you need the full signed report rather than assessability). Both the use case and the escalation path are stated.

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