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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: states OAuth and permission requirements, the rate limit (once per 24 hours), that it only re-checks existing details (never first checks), and enumerates the exact return states (queued, not_allowed, entitlement_required, unavailable, error) with details like retry_after and pricing_url. Also clarifies that purchases happen on the website only.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: requirements, constraints, side effects, and return values are packed into a structured, readable paragraph. Information is front-loaded with the OAuth/permission requirement, and the rest flows logically.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: prerequisites, rate limits, the exact behavior (queues a re-scan, never a first check), and the structured return reasons. No critical gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that subject_id refers to 'the person's existing details,' tying the parameter to the re-check target. While it doesn't explicitly define subject_id, the context is clear enough for a single parameter with a self-explanatory name.

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 action ('Queues a fresh check') and the target ('the person's existing details'), and distinguishes it from a first check by explicitly noting it 'never starts a first check and never takes new details.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like submit_approved_plan.

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?

Provides concrete conditions: 'Patrol plan only, verified subjects only, once per 24 hours,' plus the OAuth/permission requirement. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the constraint 'never starts a first check' implies when not to use it. This is clear guidance, though it stops short of explicitly routing to an alternative.

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