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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: free trial, no wallet/payment required, 3/day limit, global daily cap, unsigned verdict, and comparison to paid tiers. It does not detail error handling or response format, but covers the main behavioral traits for a trial tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE TRIAL', and no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, limits, comparison, and guidance.

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 simple trial tool, the description adequately covers the context: what it does, its limitations, and how it differs from paid versions. It does not describe output format or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is acceptable.

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% for both parameters (claim, context), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds the trial-specific limit of 500 chars for claim, but otherwise does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 it is a free trial tool providing the same reasoning-only check as second_opinion_quick, with specific limits and without the paid features (Ed25519 receipt, live web research). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings.

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?

Explicitly says 'use the paid tools for real work', indicating this is for trial purposes. Also notes it is the same as second_opinion_quick, guiding when to use this versus siblings.

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