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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the return values (authorization status, brand info, authorized SKUs, and expiry), which gives some transparency. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether any side effects occur, or whether specific permissions are required. The 'Verify' and 'Checks' wording implies a read operation, but this is not stated explicitly.

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 efficient: two sentences conveying purpose and return value, plus an Args line that explains the parameter. The key purpose is front-loaded, and there is no wasted verbiage. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter verification tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields in detail. It covers the core purpose, parameter meaning, and return summary. However, it omits error conditions (e.g., what happens if the DID is invalid or not found) and does not mention any permissions or prerequisites. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema only defines a string with title 'Reseller Did', but the description adds meaning by explaining it as a 'Reseller DID' and providing an example ('did:web:sneakerstore.com'). This goes beyond the schema and clarifies the expected format. While it could include more constraints (e.g., valid DID patterns), the example is valuable. Given the parameter is simple and well-explained, a 4 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('reseller authorization'), and explains what it checks (whether a reseller DID is authorized by a brand to sell specific products). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool mt_salesguard_verify, which likely has a similar purpose, so it loses one point for lacking direct sibling differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions that would favor this tool over mt_salesguard_verify or others, nor does it provide any exclusions. The only contextual clue is the tool's name and the 'verify' verb, which implies usage but is not explicit.

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