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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds non-obvious context: it requires no authentication, is public, and accepts no transaction data. These are behavioral constraints an agent needs to know and that annotations do not reveal.

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 filler. The identity ('Public, no-auth storefront') comes first, then the return content, then a critical constraint.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema discovery tool, the description tells the agent what it will get, the access model, and an important exclusion. Nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately doesn't fabricate parameter guidance; the baseline 4 applies.

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 clear verb-plus-resource: it Returns what ScanScam Integrity can verify, the commercial model, and how to express demand. Framing it as a storefront rather than a transaction or service request distinguishes it from the sibling integrity_request_service.

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 clearly signals when to use this tool: as a public, no-auth discovery/storefront step before expressing demand. It also tells agents what not to do ('Do not send transaction data'). However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or say 'use integrity_request_service instead,' so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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