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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond that: the empty-result semantics and the fact that results carry supporting facts, sources, and checked dates, plus the exclusion of non-payment profiles.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then expectation-setting caveats. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; only the trailing 'Profiles outside payment categories are not found' slightly overlaps the empty-list sentence.

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 steps in to describe the payload (supporting facts, sources, checked dates), which is the key missing piece. Combined with the empty-list caveat, an agent has enough to call and interpret the result correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the slug parameter description already explains copying the value from search_payment_capabilities and the format rules. The description's 'by exact slug' reinforces but adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: retrieve reviewed public product scopes for a provider within a payment category, keyed by exact slug. The 'exact slug' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling search_payment_capabilities, though it never names that sibling outright.

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 real interpretive guidance: an empty list means no mapped evidence rather than absence of a capability, and profiles outside payment categories are not found. These are clear scope and expectation boundaries, though it doesn't explicitly say 'use search_payment_capabilities to find the slug first' — that only appears in the schema.

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