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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely delivers: it discloses the $5 charge, the $5 of call credits returned on success, the 14-day refund queue, and the side effect of starting the records agent. It omits auth requirements, repeat-request/idempotency behavior, and whether the charge occurs at submission or only on success — and the trailing metrics block (uptime, golden accuracy, data-as-of) is service-level promo rather than tool behavior.

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 first two sentences are dense and front-loaded with the cost and the refund policy, which is the right ordering. But roughly half the text is an unverifiable marketing metrics block (78/78, 100% uptime, data as of 2026-10-26) that does not help an agent decide or invoke correctly.

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 paid, side-effecting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the billing and refund story is covered, but key gaps remain: no explanation of the two optional parameters, no indication of what the call returns (job ID? demand-signal record?), and no statement of prerequisites such as an API key or existing credit balance.

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 0% across all three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'jurisdiction' is only loosely implied by 'for a town'; the 'needs' array (1–10 free-text strings) and 'official_site_url' are never mentioned, so an agent has no idea what belongs in them or why they matter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Request coverage for a town') and immediately names the differentiator versus siblings check_coverage/list_coverage — this is a paid request that also creates a demand signal and starts a records agent. An agent can distinguish it from check_coverage and watch_town without opening another schema.

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?

Usage is implied — you spend $5 here when a town is not already covered — but the description never explicitly says 'use this only after check_coverage reports UNCOVERED' or names a sibling as the alternative. The refund-after-14-days clause gives useful context on the outcome if coverage never lands, but the trigger condition is left to inference.

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