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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-establish the safety profile. It adds context about being a 'free discovery magnet' and about Probe/Instant authorization, but those claims are too cryptic to meaningfully inform behavior. No contradiction with 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?

The description is short and action-oriented in the opening clause, so it avoids serious bloat. But phrases like 'Free discovery magnet', 'Instant stays taste-only', and 'Session listed LEGACY OFF TABLE as primary' are vague and cryptic rather than crisp useful guidance.

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?

The zero-parameter schema and output schema reduce the burden of explaining return values, but core domain semantics remain undefined: DENYs, Denial Exchange, Pilot Challenge Exact $100, LEGACY OFF TABLE, and how this relates to Pilot/Probe/Instant. An agent cannot confidently determine invocation semantics or task fit from this description alone.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully specifies the call signature. The description's 'one call' phrase hints at combined output but does not need to document parameter formatting. A baseline 4 is appropriate because there are no parameter semantics left to explain.

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 concrete verbs like 'Pull' and 'Hunt' and points at a resource ('DENYs', 'Denial Exchange inventory'), so it is not a mere tautology. However, terms like 'Pilot Challenge Exact $100 wealth unlock', 'LEGACY OFF TABLE', and 'taste-only' are unexplained jargon that a generic agent cannot reliably map to behavior. It only obliquely differentiates from siblings like Probe or Instant.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. 'Probe stays free/not authorize; Instant stays taste-only' hints at comparisons with other tools, but it does not state under what conditions Gravity should be selected. 'Hunt Denial Exchange inventory' provides context, not a decision rule.

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