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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds a trait annotations cannot express: no funds are spent, which is the crucial differentiator from the paid execution siblings. It also discloses the full return payload, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 tight sentences; the capability and its no-cost guarantee are front-loaded, and the example is placed last as supporting detail. Information-dense with essentially no waste.

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 no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by enumerating the returned fields (method, price, schema, sample input, contract). Combined with annotations and a single required param, an agent has nearly everything needed to call it correctly; only parameter constraints are 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 coverage is 0% and the single product_id parameter carries no description in the schema. The example {product_id:'web-extract'} usefully demonstrates the expected value format, but constraints like maxLength 100 and minLength 1 go unmentioned, so compensation is only partial.

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 (Return) and resource (one product's proof) and enumerates the payload: method, exact price, schema, sample input, purchase contract. It is clearly the pre-purchase inspection step, implicitly distinct from execute_paid_product, but it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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 title 'Inspect product proof before paying' and the phrase 'without spending funds' imply the usage context (inspect before committing funds), which is genuinely useful. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus quote_autonomous_purchase, get_purchase_instructions, or execute_paid_product, leaving routing to inference.

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