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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cost and payment mechanism ($0.01 USDC via x402), which is genuinely non-obvious behavior, but it never confirms the operation is read-only/non-mutating, describes no rate limits, and does not indicate what the audit returns. The payment flow itself is covered by the schema's payment_signature description, not here.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, then a compact enumeration of checks, with pricing as a short trailing sentence. Efficient, though the long comma-separated checklist sentence is dense enough to be slightly harder to scan.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the audit scope well but leaves the return shape (findings format, severity, per-record vs aggregate) and the two-call x402 workflow context to the schema. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 50%, and the description partially compensates by specifying '1-100 ecommerce product records', matching the array's minItems/maxItems constraints and clarifying what a record is. However, it adds no detail on the shape or required fields of individual records, and payment_signature semantics live entirely in the schema.

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 (Audit) on a specific resource (1-100 ecommerce product records) and enumerates the exact checks performed (duplicate IDs, GTIN/checksum, URL shape, price formatting, availability, identifier consistency). This clearly separates it from the remediation siblings, which act on the findings rather than producing them.

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 never states when to choose this over catalog_remediation, feed_diff, or gtin_check, nor that it is the diagnostic step preceding remediation. The only inferable workflow is that it is an audit, which is implied by the name rather than explained.

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