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

The description discloses that the tool both previews and redeems the paid report, implying a side effect on the second call when payment parameters are supplied. It also clarifies that the first call is free. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, and does not contradict them.

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 efficiently structured: first the core function, then the step-by-step usage flow. Every sentence adds necessary guidance, and the key workflow detail is front-loaded before the paid-report instructions.

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 tool with a payment flow and multi-step redeeming behavior, the description covers all necessary context: free vs. paid usage, prerequisite calls, payment parameters, and the fact that delivery is built in. The presence of an output schema covers return values, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

While the schema already describes each parameter, the tool description adds the meaningful workflow context: how `paymentOffer` is obtained from `get_offer`, why `paymentTx` is required, and how these parameters combine on the second call. This is essential semantic information an agent needs to use the parameters correctly.

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: 'Readiness audit of any agent-facing URL', and enumerates concrete checks (MCP handshake, CORS, discovery docs, payment-offer behaviour). This distinguishes it from sibling audit/check tools and leaves no ambiguity about scope.

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?

It explicitly explains when to call with only `url` for the free grade vs. calling after `get_offer` and payment for the full report. It also names the prerequisite tool (`get_offer`), the required payment step, and notes that no separate delivery tool is needed, providing a complete usage workflow.

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