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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: payment cost (0.25 USD), the need for explicit wallet authorization, the fact that it only uses buyer-supplied information, and that it returns a draft for human review. These go beyond the readOnly/destructive flags. However, it does not address the destructiveHint=true annotation, nor explain whether the tool has any side effects beyond payment, leaving a minor gap.

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 compact and informative: three sentences covering purpose, data usage constraints, deliverable, price, and authorization requirement. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or redundant restatement of the title.

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 five parameters including signatures and expiration fields, the description does not explain how payment authorization is passed, what result_expires controls, or what the expected output structure is (no output schema exists). The description covers the business rules but not the operational details an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool.

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 undocumented parameters. It does not explain what 'brief', 'source_text', or 'audience' mean in context, nor the purpose of idempotency_key, result_expires, result_signature, or payment_signature. The phrase 'supplied evidence' hints at source_text but provides no concrete mapping to schema fields.

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 a specific verb and resource – 'Create a SWOT' – then clarifies the methodology ('using supplied evidence') and the output ('Returns a draft for human review'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_report_from_sources or competitor_comparison, including an explicit scope constraint ('Uses buyer-supplied information only').

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when evidence is buyer-supplied and external research/outbound actions are not desired. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls short of the 'explicit when/when-not' standard, but the intended usage scenario is evident.

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