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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds what matters beyond that: OAuth plus the 'run_check' permission, a 24-hour rate limit, entitlement gating, and the full set of terminal outcomes including retry_after and pricing_url. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the auth requirement and the core action, then eligibility, then return values. Every clause carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates return states and their payload fields, covering the return-value gap well. The one hole is behavior when subject_id is absent, which leaves an agent unsure how to invoke it for a single-subject versus default case.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must carry the load — and it never names subject_id nor explains that it is optional (required list is empty) or how the subject is chosen when omitted. 'Verified subjects only' and 'existing details' give indirect meaning but do not resolve the ambiguity.

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 — 'Queues a fresh check of the person's existing details (the same re-scan Patrol runs monthly)' — and immediately scopes it against what it is not ('never starts a first check and never takes new details'). This distinguishes it from every sibling, which are get/list read 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?

Explicit preconditions and exclusions: Patrol plan only, verified subjects only, once per 24 hours, and it will not start a first check. It also redirects purchase intent to the website, giving the agent a clear alternative path.

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