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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds behavioral context beyond the annotation: mentions the cost model (B2 pricing, $0.05 per call, included in certain plans), explains that results are exact per-check outcomes, and clarifies that the context parameter is never used for ranking and only read when results are wrong. This provides useful transparency for callers.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose ('INFLUENCE — the ranked, costed, gated punch list'). Each sentence adds value: ranking logic, cost, alternatives, and context behavior. It is slightly verbose but well-structured, with no wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers what it returns (check results and facets), how results are ranked (weight x headroom), the gate preference, cost details, and when to use sibling tools. It gives an agent everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect, without relying on an output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only context is described in the schema). The description compensates for the slug parameter by stating 'for one provider you own,' implying slug identifies the provider. It also explains the purpose of the context parameter ('why you are asking') which matches the schema description. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't specify slug format or examples.

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's purpose: it provides a ranked, costed, gated punch list of agent-readiness checks for a specific provider the user owns. It uses a specific verb (fix) and resource (provider's readiness), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like readiness_gates and simulate_fixes by explicitly naming what they do differently.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use alternatives: 'Use readiness_gates for the gate detail and simulate_fixes to price a plan before committing to it.' It also explains the ranking preference (band gate over points) and the context parameter's purpose, giving clear guidance on when to call this tool versus others.

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