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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds what the content actually contains (pricing, live vs paper, order approval, rate limits, safety score inputs, source URLs), which is more than the annotations provide. It doesn't cover missing-slug behavior or freshness, so not a 5.

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?

One compact sentence with a colon-delimited payload list, front-loaded with the verb and resource. 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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what facts come back and that URLs are included. Minor gaps remain: behavior for unknown slugs and whether the response is a fixed shape.

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 100% with a single slug parameter whose description already says 'from search_tools or name'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (one tool) and enumerates the exact payload: pricing, live vs paper, order approval, rate limits, safety score inputs, source URLs. This clearly distinguishes it from search_tools, which is referenced in the schema as the source of the slug.

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 schema description says the slug comes from search_tools, which implies the lookup pattern, but the tool description itself gives no explicit when-to-use versus compare_tools, list_category, or broker_order_gating. Usage is inferable from the payload list but not stated.

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