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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral boundaries beyond the annotations: it confirms that this preview only verifies resolvability and signal coverage, and deliberately withholds the risk score, mismatch findings, and final decision. This prevents false expectations without contradicting the 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 succinct sentences front-load the free-preview purpose, then state the scope, exclusions, and routing to the paid sibling. There is no filler or redundant detail; every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only preview tool with an output schema, high schema coverage, and zero required parameters, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: when to use it, what it returns, what it intentionally does not return, and which sibling covers the full paid decision. Nothing essential is 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 description coverage is 92%, so the input schema already documents the individual parameters well. The description only refers generically to 'invoice and payment-context signals' rather than restating parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage and the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific free preview action for an Israeli vendor payment-risk assessment and clearly states what it confirms (company resolvability) and what it shows (invoice and payment-context signals). It also explicitly differentiates itself from the paid assessment tool by stating what it does not reveal: a risk score, mismatch findings, or a decision.

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 explicitly positions this tool as the pre-payment free option and instructs the agent to use assess_israeli_vendor_payment_risk_paid for the evidence-backed PROCEED, REVIEW, or BLOCK result. This gives an unambiguous when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use rule.

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