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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, and the description reinforces 'Read-only' while adding cost and timing context: free review up to four weeks, Pro Launch $49 and published within 24 hours. The 'cheap' note adds practical economical context beyond annotations; no contradiction exists.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose, then succinctly cover contents, pricing, timing, and usage. Every sentence contributes unique value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no input parameters and an output schema present, the description needs only to provide usage context, returned information, cost, and side-effect profle — all are included. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter guidance is needed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List exactly what submit_pwa needs' and enumerates the delivered content—required/optional fields, rules, catalog categories, and review tiers. This clearly distingues from sibling tools by framing it as the requirements reference for submit_pwa.

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?

It explicitly states when to call it: 'Call it before submit_pwa rather than guessing a category.' This gives an agent a direct routing instruction and prevents confusion with status or submission tools.

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