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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description discloses that reports are free, verified against the merchant's own feed before counting, and that contradicted claims are stored and marked as contradicted rather than believed. This is useful behavioral context. It does not address rate limits or edit/delete behavior, but the core trust model is transparent.

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?

Purpose, behavior, and usage are each clearly present and the description is front-loaded with what the tool does. However, 'Free' appears twice and the final 'Price: Free' line repeats the first sentence, adding redundancy without new information. 'Makes every later answer better' is also somewhat vague.

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?

Given the schema covers all five parameters and the description covers when to call, what happens to reports, and the unique value of the freight field, this is sufficiently complete for correct invocation. There is no output schema, but return values are not necessary to decide when or how to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for shipping_usd by calling it 'the one number Vortex cannot collect for itself,' and it frames outcome as covering both good and bad attempts. The product URL requirement is already in the schema, so the description contributes a modest but real increment above baseline.

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 action and object: 'Tell Vortex how a purchase actually went.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and naturally distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like find, history, and landed. It also adds meaningful context about merchant-feed verification and contradiction handling.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this after any purchase attempt, good or bad.' It also notes that freight quotes are the one number Vortex cannot collect itself, giving a clear reason to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's role is unique among the visible siblings.

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