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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior; the description adds valuable context: cost (€49), review timeframes (4 weeks vs 48h), and reiterates 'read-only, and cheap.' This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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, each earning its place: core purpose, pricing/timing, and a usage tip. Front-loaded and free of 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?

Given an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers all relevant context: what info is returned (fields, categories, tiers), pricing, timing, and when to call it. Complete for a zero-parameter 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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters; instead it focuses on the output content, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 applies due to 0-param nature.

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 states exactly what the tool does: lists required/optional fields, rules, catalog categories, and review tiers for submit_pwa. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by naming submit_pwa and framing the tool as a prerequisite, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clear when-to-use guidance ('Call it before submit_pwa rather than guessing a category') and contextual pricing/timing info. It does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the directive is strong and unambiguous.

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