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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the lead-qualification rule (ad and SEO evidence required), the caveat that public emails are not verified decision makers, and the cost/payment model ($0.05 USDC per qualified result via x402). The pricing disclosure is unusually valuable behavioral context.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the imperative use case and followed by qualification logic and pricing. Little waste, though the packing of three evidence types into one clause makes it slightly busy.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers what is inspected, the qualification criterion, and cost. It is close to complete for a 1-param tool; only the relationship to overlapping siblings 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'domain' parameter is fully documented in the schema (format, bounds, examples). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (inspect) and resource (store) and enumerates the three things checked: schema gaps, Google ad activity, and public business contacts. However, it does not distinguish itself from heavily overlapping siblings like muse_agentic_store_readiness_auditor, get_google_ads_by_domain, or extract_company_contacts, so an agent could confuse the coverage.

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 to inspect a supplied store..." implies when it applies, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative, which is a real gap given the sibling overlap on schema, ads, and contacts. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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