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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real semantics: the call is free, the terms are business-only, and a status other than 'ready' means Mainnet purchase is unavailable. It stops short of stating permission/rate-limit behavior or what a successful response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, cost qualifier front-loaded, no wasted words. Efficient even if slightly telegraphic.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must do more, and it omits the shape of the returned terms profile and any error/empty conditions. The status-passage does give the agent enough to interpret the key result field.

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 0% for the single product_id parameter. The description only implies it must reference a 'supported paid product'; it adds no format, length, or source-of-valid-IDs detail to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (business-only commercial terms profile), scoped to a 'supported paid product'. Clear enough to distinguish from the evidence-pack/preflight siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 'Free:' prefix tells the agent the call has no cost, which is mild usage signal, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (auth, eligibility), and no mention of when another sibling would be the better choice.

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