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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable practical guarantee: 'This tool never charges.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent decide to invoke it safely.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core purpose stated first and the safety-relevant 'never charges' note following. No redundant or filler content.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive tool with strong annotations, the description covers what is returned and a key behavioral guarantee. There is no output schema, but the description names the two main outputs, which is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description does not need to add parameter 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 clearly states that the tool returns current Living Stack purchase boundaries and the shortest buyer handoff, which distinguishes it from the sibling purchase-preparation tools. However, the exact meaning of 'purchase boundaries' is domain-specific and could be clearer.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is informational ('never charges') and returns boundaries/handoff details, so an agent would call it before preparing a purchase. It does not explicitly name siblings as alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context provides reasonable guidance.

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