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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds valuable payload context (citations, evidence references, ready-to-use fix text and code) and the sequencing hint, but says nothing about behavior on unknown finding ids or whether plan/cancel_url alter the returned text.

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 most important detail — what the finding contains and that it includes a concrete fix — is front-loaded in a single tight sentence, followed by the platform override and the verification step. It is slightly run-on with the parenthetical platform list, but no sentence is padding.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so concretely (citations, evidence refs, disclosure text plus code snippet). For a read-only single-resource getter it is nearly complete, with the only gap being error or not-found behavior.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the enum and the '(default: detected)' note for target. The description's 'target overrides the detected platform' largely restates the schema, though tying the enum values to the snippet languages (Stripe Checkout params, Payment Link, Shopify Liquid or HTML) adds modest clarity.

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 states exactly what is returned for a single finding: observation, legal citations, evidence references, verified disclosure text, and a platform-specific code snippet. It implies the singular counterpart to list_findings ('One finding') but never names that sibling or get_compliant_disclosure, leaving the boundary only implicit.

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?

It gives a clear next-step workflow — 'Apply the fix, then verify_site (or verify_task from the plan)' — which tells the agent where this tool sits in the remediation loop. It does not state when to prefer get_compliant_disclosure or what to do if the finding id is invalid, so exclusions are missing.

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