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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the access-gating behavior (requires payment, returns an unlock message without access) and precisely enumerates the report's contents. This gives the agent a clear picture of what will happen when invoked, both with and without entitlements.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the report contents, and the second covers the access condition and fallback. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is easily scannable.

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 schema and no output schema, the description must carry the full weight of explaining what the tool returns and any preconditions. It does both: it lists the three report components and explains the gated behavior. For a zero-parameter read-only report tool, this is complete enough for an agent to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema imposes no burden. The description does not need to explain any input semantics; it focuses on the output. Thus the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies, and the description meets it without needing parameter elaboration.

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 what the tool returns: a Deep Audit report containing three specific components (AI answer-visibility test, catalog fix plan, worst-scoring products with missing attributes). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_fix_opportunities or get_network_insights by naming the exact report contents, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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 mentions an access prerequisite (paid plan or $9 purchase) and the fallback behavior when access is missing, which is a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_fix_opportunities or get_network_insights, nor does it provide guidance on which scenarios warrant this specific report. The usage context is implied but not differentiated.

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