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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses pricing, payment mechanism (x402), the two-step call sequence, data sources, and output contents (ranked themes, evidence, implications, supply index, inventory, and caveats). It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but for a report endpoint this is adequate.

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 a dense but well-structured paragraph. Every sentence contributes value—purpose, pricing, usage, data sources, and output. It is slightly longer than necessary but remains focused and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 provided, the description compensates by explaining the nature of the returned data (ranked themes, evidence, supply index, inventory, caveats). It does not specify exact fields or pagination, but for a report tool this level of detail is sufficient for an agent to understand expectations.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, particularly around the payment parameter's two-step invocation flow and the default window behavior, which enhances comprehension without redundancy.

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 precisely what the tool does: reports builder demand and supply gaps, with specific details on data sources and output format. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_demand_preview by describing a comprehensive report rather than a preview, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit and actionable usage guidance for the payment flow: call without `payment` to get requirements, then call again with `payment` to be served. This is clear and functional, though it does not discuss when to choose this over sibling tools or note exclusions, leaving a minor gap.

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