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

The description discloses a temporary suspension status — a behavioral trait not visible in annotations. It also reinforces the non-destructive, read-only posture by telling the user not to sign or send payments. This adds meaningful value beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the most important information (suspension). Every sentence earns its place: the status, the available alternative, and a direct warning. No wasted words.

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 tool that is currently suspended, the description adequately communicates unavailability and the existence of free previews. However, it never explains what the tool actually does when functional, which is critical for an agent evaluating whether to use this tool at all. Schema richness covers parameters but not the tool's core purpose.

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 92%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable given the schema's high coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 never states what the tool does. It only announces that paid reports and x402 payments are suspended and warns against signing or sending payments. There is no verb+resource relationship or mention of risk assessment, making the purpose unclear beyond the tool's name.

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 provides some context: paid reports are suspended and free previews remain available, implying the user should use a free preview instead. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state any conditions for when this tool should be invoked versus avoided, leaving the guidance partly implicit.

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