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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description layers on substantial behavior: it evaluates nothing, never sends the request, is deterministic, is free with no payment or account, and reads parameters from the verifier's live documents. That is rich context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the opening clause and keeps the key negative constraint ('It evaluates nothing itself') prominent. However, the dense run-on enumerations of field names and path details make individual sentences heavy, with some redundancy between the leading phrase and the later negative description.

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 carries the burden of describing the return content (request body, free path with MCP URL/tool/allowance/limit-fit, paid path with endpoint/price/networks/protocol) and does so thoroughly, along with its non-evaluating, non-sending nature. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema; the description's clarification of listing_id vs. output_schema (and their template vs. inline semantics) largely restates the schema. The enumerated field names (task_id, expected_schema, submitted_output, rules, bounds, enforce_rules) describe the produced body rather than input parameters, so they add little to input semantics.

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 and resource ('Prepares the exact call to the Agent Output Verifier for one output') and enumerates exactly what it produces (request body, free path, paid path). It also distinguishes its scope by declaring what it does not do (no schema check, no rule check, no verdict, never sends the request), so an agent knows it is a builder, not an evaluator or sender.

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?

Gives clear conditional usage for the two mutually exclusive inputs ('Give listing_id ... or an inline output_schema') and notes it is free and needs no account or payment. It does not explicitly name or exclude sibling tools (e.g., describe_listing, build_template), so routing vs. alternatives is left to inference.

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