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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'get detailed line-item breakdown,' which implies a read operation, but it does not confirm side effects, authorization requirements, or what a 'line-item' actually consists of. The term 'detailed' is vague and does not explain the return structure or any potential errors.

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 single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately sized, but given the lack of other context, it could earn its place better by including a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 must explain what the tool returns, but it does not. The 'checks' parameter is undefined, and the description does not clarify how the dimension enum affects the breakdown. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional implicit knowledge.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'score dimension,' which maps to the 'dimension' parameter, but it does not explain the 'checks' parameter at all. Given the low schema coverage, the description must compensate for both parameters, and it fails to do so fully.

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 uses a specific verb 'get' and identifies a clear resource: a detailed line-item breakdown for a score dimension. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_scan, refresh_scan, scan_website, and submit_lead, none of which perform a similar breakdown function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. There are no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred over its siblings.

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