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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavior beyond the annotations by disclosing the return shape ('what was checked, what could not be checked, and the sources') and that results are grounded in a fixed 15-scheme knowledge base.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and grounded in named artifacts; every sentence adds information. The long parenthetical enumerating offer types is illustrative but slightly bloated for the value it adds.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return semantics ('what was checked, what could not be checked, and the sources') and the knowledge basis. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears absent.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The pitch in the user's words'), so the schema already carries the burden. The description's list of offer types (course, trading bot, done-for-you store, etc.) loosely illustrates what to pass but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 (compare/check) and resource (an 'AI income' pitch someone was pitched), and grounds it in concrete artifacts ('the 15 schemes in the Reality Check and the do not start guides'). This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_platform_rules, get_way, and search_ways.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger context: 'Use before giving an opinion on any AI income pitch.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it offers no when-not or named alternative tool for adjacent tasks.

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