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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is advisory only, sensitive to prompt injection, requires the caller to retain final judgment, costs $0.001 per call, and needs no external account. This goes well beyond the readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return values, then adds operational caveats and pricing. Most sentences earn their place, though the provider branding and sample-endpoint suggestion are slightly less essential than the safety and cost details.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and safety annotations, the description supplies the remaining decision-critical context: advisory nature, prompt-injection risk, cost, and the caller's responsibility. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without needing more explanation of return values.

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 the input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the user request and tool call only at a high level and adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the specific decision the tool makes: whether a tool call should run automatically, require human confirmation, or be denied, and it names the return values. It is easily distinguishable from most siblings by its tool-call safety focus, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with potentially related siblings like decide or verify.

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 provides a clear usage context: call it with the user's request and the proposed tool call to get an allow/ask/deny judgment. It also tells the calling agent to keep final decision authority. However, it does not state explicit when-not-use conditions or name alternative tools for related checks.

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