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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the qualitative output tiers, the fact that a link is only returned for in-scope categories, and firm commitments about what the tool will not do (approve, quote fees, promise timelines). The PII prohibition is exactly the kind of operational constraint annotations cannot convey.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded, followed by inputs, outputs, limits, and the PII warning in a logical order. It is dense but nearly every clause carries weight; the one redundancy is restating the input list that the schema already defines.

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 read-only advisory tool with five parameters and an output schema, the description covers the trigger, the evidence needed, the shape of the answer, the scope boundary, and the privacy constraint. An agent has everything required to decide to call it and how to frame the result to a merchant.

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 per-parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description does enumerate the same five inputs, which confirms they are the intended evidence set, but adds no format, granularity, or example guidance beyond what the schema fields already state. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the detail.

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 names a specific verb and resource: assessing whether a high-risk merchant account review fits a merchant's business. The stated inputs (niche, volume, country, processor, what happened) and outputs (qualitative fit, typical documents, timeline, application link) make the function unambiguous. It never names a sibling for contrast, so differentiation from tools like compare_processor_fit or build_application_checklist is left implicit.

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 opening clause gives a clear trigger: use it when a merchant asks whether a high-risk account review may fit. It also states three explicit exclusions (no approval, no fee quotes, no promised timeline) and a data-handling rule against card numbers, government IDs, and bank details. It stops short of routing the agent to a specific alternative when the answer is out of scope.

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