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

The description contradicts the annotation openWorldHint: true by explicitly stating 'no external research or outbound actions.' This is a direct contradiction. While it discloses payment and wallet authorization, the contradiction lowers the score to 1 per the rubric.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, includes key constraints (no external research), output (draft for human review), and pricing/payment details. Every 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?

Despite the tool's complexity (5 params, nested object, no output schema), the description omits parameter meanings, idempotency, signature requirements, and output format details. It covers high-level constraints but leaves critical invocation details undocumented.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (input, result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, payment_signature). It only mentions 'supplied document text' without mapping to the actual schema fields, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the tool summarizes supplied document text, listing main points, evidence, caveats, and source section references. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific content types like ad copy or blog drafts.

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 provides context by stating it uses buyer-supplied information only and no external research, indicating when it's appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions.

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