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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: bounded heuristic detection, explicit non-guarantees, public-HTTPS-only scope, no stored target payment or request bodies, and pricing details. This gives the agent a useful operational, privacy, and cost profile.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with the tool name and core function, then layers caveats, privacy, and pricing. It is dense but every sentence carries relevant operational information; minor compression could improve readability without losing meaning.

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 helpfully names riskScore, flagged spans, and rewrite suggestions. However, for a two-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, it omits parameter semantics and lacks sibling-routing guidance, leaving key invocation details incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what url or method mean in this context or how method affects validation. 'Public HTTPS only' adds a relevant constraint for url, but the required method parameter remains semantically unexplained beyond its enum values in the schema.

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: CDP technical validation plus a bounded heuristic metadata screen for listings, with named signals like embedded URLs and invisible Unicode. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling check_listing or explain how it differs from check_endpoint.

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 explains the capability but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus check_listing, check_endpoint, or preflight_payment. Usage is only implied by the 'Bazaar Listing Guard' framing and the listing-metadata screening focus; there are no exclusions or alternative-routing instructions.

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