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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this unusually well by explicitly stating that the tool follows no redirect, calls no target tool, sends no credential or target payment, and returns no target schema, response body, or session identifier. These safety and side-effect disclosures are highly relevant for agent invocation.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the first states the core action, the second routes to sibling tools, and the third covers safety and non-side-effects. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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?

Given the tool has six parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It explains purpose, alternatives, safety behavior, surface-selection semantics, and what will not be returned, while the output schema covers return-structure details.

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%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds useful context about byte budgets and unselected surfaces, but it does not need to explain individual parameters; the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter-level detail.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Measure') and a precise resource: a public service's credential-free MCP tools/list, OpenAPI, or both discovery surfaces. It also names sibling tools and clarifies what this tool does not do, making it easily distinguishable from agent_discoverability_audit and seller_integrity_audit.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('before any tool call or target payment') and gives exact routing guidance: use agent_discoverability_audit for catalog reach and rank, seller_integrity_audit for a single operation's response contract, and this tool for byte budgets, heaviest definitions, and progressive-discovery fixes. It also states that unselected surfaces are not fetched or judged, which clarifies selection behavior.

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