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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the contents returned: probe count, attack classes, scoring scale, CI gate, and price with payment methods. This gives a clear picture of the information payloadioa. However, it does not explicitly state whether the call is read-only or whether any side effects occur, though 'pricing info' strongly implies a non-mutating lookup.

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 single, dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose ('PRO pricing & payment info') and packs the key specifics into an efficient list. There is no filler, redundant wording, or repetition of the tool name.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description adequately conveys the essential content an agent needs: the pricing, the payment options, and the feature breakdown. It could be more complete by describing the exact response shape or clarifying that no purchase action is triggered, but these are minor given the low complexity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters)Skip(), so schema coverage is trivially 100% and no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds useful domain context about what the zero-parameter call will return, matching the baseline of 4 for parameter-less tools.

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 provides 'PRO pricing & payment info' and lists concrete specifics (24 probes, 9 attack classes, 0-100 score, CI gate, 3 USDT). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_scan_result and run_free_scan, though it does not explicitly name them. It is specific about the resource but stops short of fully differentiating in words.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_purchase_flow or run_free_scan. An agent must infer from the tool name and content that this is for retrieving pricing/payment information. No exclusions or selection criteria are given.

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