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

The description contradicts the openWorldHint annotation: openWorldHint=true suggests access to external world information, while the description explicitly says 'no external research or outbound actions.' The description does provide useful context about payment and human review, but the direct contradiction with an annotation forces a score of 1.

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 a compact three-sentence definition with no wasted words. It front-loads the core function, then gives scope constraints, output expectations, and pricing/authorization requirements, all of which are decision-relevant.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the agent is left without enough detail to construct a valid request, especially the meaning of brief versus source_text versus audience. The payment and no-external-research constraints are helpful, but the openWorld contradiction and parameter gaps make the definition incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the five parameters, but it does not explain what belongs in input.brief, source_text, audience, or the various signature/expiry fields. The only implicit mapping is 'buyer-supplied information' roughly pointing to input, which is insufficient for a nested-object request.

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 verb-resource pair: edit supplied text for grammar and clarity while preserving facts and intent, and mentions that meaningful changes are summarized. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling rewrite tools like tone_rewrite or plain_language_rewrite, but the focus on grammar/clarity plus the change summary is reasonably specific.

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 this tool is appropriate when a buyer-supplied text needs grammar and clarity editing without external research, and it warns that payment requires explicit wallet authorization. It does not state when to prefer an alternative tool or when not to use this tool, leaving some routing decisions to the agent.

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