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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it reads specific contract details, mentions 'safe purchase recovery,' and explicitly rules out network crawling and payment actions. No contradiction with 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 extremely concise: one sentence covering what is read, followed by a short exclusion note. Every phrase earns its place, and the core information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only inspection tool, the description covers the key return areas and non-behaviors. The lack of a return format is a minor gap, but the low complexity and rich annotations make the definition adequate for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics that do not exist.

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 'Read' and names concrete resources: price, exact supported hosts, limitations, and safe purchase recovery. It also explicitly states what the tool does not do ('No network crawl or payment'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like preview_assets and get_evidence_sample.

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 'No network crawl or payment' clause gives helpful context about what the tool avoids, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_evidence_sample or prepare_evidence_request. Usage is implied rather than fully stated.

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