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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Public Store API only, no LLM' reveals implementation constraints, and '$0.05/call, x402 (USDC on base)' discloses cost and payment method. This goes beyond the openWorldHint and other annotations without contradicting them.

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 remarkably succinct: a single sentence for the primary action and a dash-separated fragment for cost/technical details. There is no redundant wording; every element earns its place.

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 no output schema and 8 parameters, the description covers the core action, scope, cost, and implementation constraint. It does not define the exact return format or explain the 'x402' protocol, but the presence of full parameter descriptions and clear purpose makes it mostly 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 coverage is 100% — every parameter has a description in the input schema. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Summarize visible public Apify Store event-price distributions for a declared cohort', which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling advisors like apify-actor-idea-validator or apify-market-gap-finder by focusing on pricing benchmarks.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'declared cohort' and 'public Apify Store', but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as pricing_info. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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