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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it never triggers an audit, it reads the stored score, and it explains the hard-block semantics including the orders_blocked case. It stops short of describing freshness/staleness of the stored score or error behavior when the host is unknown.

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 score outcome, then the routing instruction to scan_store. It is dense but every clause (hard-block, protocol adoption, no-audit, fallback) adds information; the heavy parenthetical could be split for readability but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what is returned: /100 score, grade, hard-block status and agent-protocol adoption (UCP, A2A, ARD). Combined with the fallback path for unscored hosts, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single host parameter is documented in the schema with an example, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no format guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented single parameter.

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 and resource (check merchant/agent readiness for a host) and scopes it precisely: a deterministic /100 score for agent findability, comprehension and purchase. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like scan_store by being the read-only lookup.

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 states when to use it ('reads the latest stored score and never triggers an audit') and names the alternative for the opposite case ('if the host has no score yet, call scan_store to run one'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension rewards.

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