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

The description explicitly claims the tool 'Never refreshes, signs or spends,' which implies a read-only operation. However, the annotations set readOnlyHint to false, directly contradicting that claim. Per the rubric, any contradiction between description and annotations results in a score of 1.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds an essential safety clarification. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema or annotation information.

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 output schema exists and the parameter schema is well-covered, most invocation details are present. However, the contradiction between the read-only claim and readOnlyHint=false creates critical uncertainty about whether this tool can have side effects, which prevents the description from being fully contextually complete.

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%, with both listing_id and paid_refresh_tx already described in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Check') on a specific resource ('an existing paid provider profile's refresh eligibility') and includes distinguishing details like 'for free' and 'including cooldown.' It also explicitly differentiates itself from refresh/sign/spend operations, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as ontario_refresh-listing.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to check refresh eligibility and cooldown status without performing a paid action. The phrase 'Never refreshes, signs or spends' acts as an exclusion, indicating this is a validation-only step, although it does not name specific sibling alternatives.

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