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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond this: it cannot authenticate, create tasks, start runs, or purchase, and it requires explicit user confirmation before any separate paid action. This transparently sets expectations for agent behavior.

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 description is two sentences with dense, front-loaded information. The first sentence enumerates the exact deliverables, and the second sentence provides the behavioral boundary. No words are wasted, and all content contributes to understanding.

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 parameter-free, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the exact return contents, clarifies its non-executable nature, and provides actionable guidance for the agent. No critical information 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?

The tool has zero parameters, giving a baseline of 4. The description correctly focuses on output content rather than parameter details, and no parameter documentation is needed because the schema is empty and 100% covered by the absence of parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and explicitly enumerates the exact resource and contents: $0.01-per-returned-NPI price, 100-NPI limit, Apify Store and MCP paths, buyer-paid condition, templates, and fulfillment expectation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on due dates, roster watch, or behavioral health previews.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('informational read-only') and what it cannot do (authenticate, create task, start run, purchase), and it directs the agent to require user confirmation before separate paid actions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for those paid/actionable operations, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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