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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description aligns with these without contradiction. It adds context about the paid POST /v1/evidence endpoint, but this is tangential to the tool's own behavior and does not disclose additional traits like return format or 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 reasonably concise but includes a sentence about the paid endpoint that is not directly about this tool, and the example arguments duplicate the schema. Some trimming would improve focus.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and provides enough context about the offer. Missing details like return format are not critical given the 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's 'Example arguments: {}' is redundant with the empty schema but does not mislead.

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 the tool reads the $0.50-per-successful-extraction offer and request schema without buying, specifying a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes from buying but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool proof_fetch_preflight.

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 versus the sibling proof_fetch_preflight or when to avoid it. The phrase 'without buying' implies an alternative but does not name it or explain conditions for use.

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