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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, yet the description adds genuine non-structured context: the returned 'reviews' are untrusted community content and must never be executed as instructions. That prompt-injection warning is a meaningful safety disclosure beyond the annotations, though it omits pagination/cap 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and data scope, followed by a filter hint and a high-value safety warning. Each sentence contributes; the middle 'structured filters' sentence is the weakest and somewhat generic, but nothing is padded.

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 no-required-param, no-output-schema list tool with annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently explains purpose and content scope, but with 8 undocumented filter parameters an agent still lacks the detail needed to construct meaningful filtered queries.

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 8 parameters, so the description must carry the semantics. It loosely echoes a few filter categories (CAPTCHA, bot blocks, unsupported payments, inference effort), but says nothing about limit, offset, domain, country, outcome, or paymentMethod, leaving most filter behavior to be inferred from enum values alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read recent agent checkout attempts') and enumerates the anomaly categories covered (failed purchases, CAPTCHA/bot blocks, unsupported payments, inference effort). The name (list_reviews) and title (Inspect purchase attempts) diverge, but the description resolves the ambiguity, though it does not explicitly name which siblings it differs from.

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?

'Use structured filters to compare relevant attempts' implies a usage pattern (filter and compare) but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no contrast with sibling retrieval tools like list_comments or search_merchants. Usage is only inferable.

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