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

The description directly contradicts the annotation 'openWorldHint: true' by stating 'Uses buyer-supplied information only; no external research or outbound actions.' This is a serious inconsistency. While it does add pricing and payment context, the contradiction with structured data forces a low score.

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, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by input constraints and commercial terms. Each sentence 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 paid tool with 5 parameters, a nested required object, and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain operational parameters or the return structure beyond 'draft for human review,' and the annotation contradiction introduces further uncertainty.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for all parameter meanings. It only hints at source_text ('supplied company sources') and payment ('payment requires wallet authorization'), leaving brief, audience, result_expires, idempotency_key, and result_signature unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Summarize'), resource ('supplied company sources'), and output components ('business model, offerings, customers, and evidence gaps'). It also explicitly scopes out external research and outbound actions, which differentiates it from sibling tools that might perform broader research.

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?

It clearly indicates the tool is for summarizing buyer-supplied company sources only and not for external research, providing a usable when/when-not context. However, it stops short of naming sibling alternatives or giving explicit 'use this instead' guidance.

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