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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description meaningfully adds that the tool does not sign or spend funds and that it returns an endpoint, exact USDC price, source coverage, and normalized body. This clarifies the non-payment, preparation-only nature beyond the annotations.

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 two focused sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and product scope are front-loaded, followed by a compact list of return values and the key non-payment constraint.

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 eight parameters and no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level summary of return contents: endpoint, price, coverage, and normalized body. It does not detail failure behavior or how to use the returned request body, but combined with the schema and annotations this is adequately 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 high at 88%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds little about specific parameters beyond implying a company query and listing the product choices, which maps to the product enum. This meets the baseline but adds no extra semantic value.

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 action and resource: validate a company query and prepare one of four named company intelligence products. It also distinguishes this tool from the article-focused siblings and from payment execution by stating it returns a paid x402 endpoint without signing or spending funds.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this tool to validate a company intelligence request and obtain pricing/coverage/request details before any payment occurs. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative tools like prepare_commission_quote, but the product list and 'without signing or spending funds' signal when it is appropriate.

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