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

The description transparently discloses its limitation (covers representative tactics only) and claims universality across countries and languages. While it doesn't explicitly mention side effects, the read-only annotation already covers that, and the description adds useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and concise despite being bilingual. It includes the tool's purpose, examples, applicability, and a limitation in two compact sentences per language. No unnecessary verbosity or redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description gives a high-level indication that it returns warnings and recommended actions, which provides sufficient context for a simple tool. However, it could be more explicit about the exact output format or structure, so slightly below maximum.

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 single parameter 'text' is fully described in the schema as the expression/item of concern from an estimate or sales pitch, and the tool description reinforces this by referencing examples. The semantics are unambiguous and complete.

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 that the tool checks wording in estimates or sales pitches against known overcharge/high-pressure tactics and returns warnings with actions. It provides concrete examples (lump-sum, today-only discount, etc.) and explicitly notes it covers only representative tactics, which effectively distinguishes it from more comprehensive audit tools.

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 use for quick red-flag screening by stating it covers representative tactics only, but it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools (e.g., audit_estimate, verify_fair_price) or specify when to prefer this tool. The universal applicability note gives some context, but the guidance is mostly implicit.

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