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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a non-mutating read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on not-found/error behavior, identifier format expectations, or scope of the returned record.

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?

A single short sentence with the lookup key front-loaded and zero filler — well sized for the task. It loses a point only because it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than being efficiently informative.

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 trivial one-parameter read tool with a readOnly annotation and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It nevertheless omits error behavior and how this differs from list_orders, leaving real gaps at the edges.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single parameter. 'By id' merely restates the parameter name order_id and gives no format, type, or example, adding essentially no meaning over 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?

States a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('an order') scoped by identifier, which is unambiguous on its own. However, it offers no differentiation from the closely related siblings list_orders and get_product, so an agent must infer which retrieval tool applies.

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 guidance on when to use this versus list_orders (fetch many) or the other get_* tools. No prerequisites, no mention of what happens if the id is unknown, and no indication of the intended call context.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating call, and the description adds only the semantic framing that the rules are deterministic and purchase-gating. It says nothing about what the policy governs, whether the rules are static or refresh, or what an agent should do with a denial.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with no filler and no wasted clauses. It is well front-loaded, though its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than as a result of disciplined editing.

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 and no return-value description, an agent has no idea what the policy payload contains (rule names, thresholds, precedents) or how to interpret a denial. For a zero-parameter tool the call mechanics are trivial, but the response contract is entirely undocumented.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no schema gap to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 phrase 'the deterministic rules that gate every purchase' identifies the resource (purchasing policy rules) and hints at its role, but it is a noun phrase with no verb, so an agent must infer that this tool retrieves them. It is distinguishable in domain from siblings like get_order or propose_purchase, but the purpose is never stated declaratively.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as verify_audit_log or get_product, nor any note about prerequisites or sequencing relative to propose_purchase/place_order. The purchasing-gate role implies it matters before ordering, but that is inference, not guidance.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe lookup, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds the content scope of the record but nothing about freshness, caching, or behavior when a SKU is unknown (error vs. empty).

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the resource first and the returned fields after. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the record's field groups. For a simple one-parameter getter the coverage is nearly sufficient, with only error/freshness behavior missing.

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?

Single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description only implies the parameter is a SKU via 'for one SKU' and adds no format, case, or identifier-source detail. Adequate but not compensating for the schema gap.

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 ('Full record for one SKU') and enumerates the returned content (price, attributes, compatibility, policies, stock). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_catalog, so an agent must infer that this is the single-item detail lookup.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The phrase 'one SKU' weakly implies the caller must already possess a SKU, but it never says to use search_catalog first to obtain one or when this is preferable.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description need not re-explain non-destructiveness. It adds only the 'item counts' content hint; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the result is cached/static. Modest added value on top of 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?

A single five-word fragment with no filler, and the resource plus payload hint are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (categories with counts) but omits ordering and completeness guarantees. Small gap, low risk given the tool's simplicity and the readOnly annotation.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the empty schema is self-consistent with a plain enumeration tool.

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 names a specific resource (product categories) and the returned payload detail (item counts), so an agent knows exactly what this list tool yields. It is a small fragment rather than a full sentence with an explicit verb, but the resource is unambiguous against siblings like list_missions or list_orders.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., search_catalog for filtered lookups) and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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

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

With only readOnlyHint=true declared, the description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the response: intent, budget, remaining budget, allowed and forbidden categories, expiry. It does not mention whether multiple missions can be returned or how 'signed' is determined, but the field inventory is substantive behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste. The resource and its scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence carries a distinct, load-bearing constraint rather than 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers resource, scope, and returned fields sufficiently. It could note whether results are a single mission or a collection and how empty results are represented, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

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 schema takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and no coverage gap to compensate for. Baseline 4 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?

The description identifies the resource (missions the user has signed) and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows this is a read of the caller's spending mandates. The verb is implicit rather than stated, and it does not distinguish itself from the nearby get_policy sibling, which is a plausible source of confusion.

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?

'You can only buy inside one of these' establishes that a mission is a prerequisite for purchasing, which is genuine contextual guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use direction relative to alternatives (e.g., get_policy vs this list), leaving the trigger condition implied.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's only added context is the "so far" time scope and the optional mission narrowing. It says nothing about pagination, result ordering, volume limits, or what happens when mission_id is invalid — meaningful gaps for a list operation even against a lower annotation bar.

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?

One compact sentence with the filter qualifier at the end; nothing is wasted. The phrasing "ordered so far" is slightly ambiguous about time boundaries, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

This is a list tool with no output schema and no annotations describing returns, so the description is the only place return shape, ordering, and pagination could be explained — and none of it appears. For a listing endpoint that gap matters more than it would for a single-object getter.

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 0%, so the description must carry mission_id, and it does partially: it clarifies the parameter is optional and scopes results to a single mission. It adds no format or ID syntax, so it is a partial compensation rather than a full one.

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?

"Orders placed so far, optionally for one mission" largely restates the name list_orders, adding only the temporal scope and the optional mission filter. It gives no differentiation from siblings like get_order (single order) or search_catalog/place_order, so an agent must open the schema to know whether this is a bulk listing or a filtered search.

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 statement, no mention of the alternative get_order for retrieving one order, and no guidance on when to pass mission_id versus omitting it. The optional filter is mentioned but the conditions that select it are left to inference.

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

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavior: each approval is consumed once (single-use token), and the charged amount is the catalog total rather than caller-supplied, which is important safety context for an irreversible purchase.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the parameter constraint, then the single-use guarantee. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the sole input, and the key constraint. It omits failure behavior (expired/consumed approval) and return shape, but these are minor since the output schema is absent and the core semantics are stated.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does it well: approval_id is an identifier from a prior approval step, the amount is deliberately not a parameter but derived from the catalog total, and the token is single-use. That is meaning well beyond the bare 'string' type.

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 (execute) and resource (a basket the gateway approved), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like propose_purchase or get_order. It does not name an alternative sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'a basket the gateway approved' implies the prerequisite that an approval must already exist, and 'takes only the approval_id' scopes the call. However, it never says when to use this versus propose_purchase or what to do if no approval exists, leaving workflow guidance implicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the outcome branching (APPROVE vs REJECT), the single-use nature of the approval_id, its 10-minute validity, and what a rejection returns (the refusing rule plus a hint). It does not state whether the call itself has side effects or how the approval_id is later consumed, leaving a residual gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and everything is front-loaded: the action and payload constraint come first, the outcome contract second. No sentence is redundant.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with a nested items array, the description covers the response contract well (APPROVE/REJECT, approval_id lifetime, rejection payload). The remaining gaps are the meaning of mission_id and how the returned approval_id ties into a subsequent order, which an agent would need to infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It clarifies that 'items' carry SKUs and quantities, but says nothing about mission_id (the required scoping key) or the optional 500-character justification, leaving two of three parameters unexplained anywhere.

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 a specific verb and resource: submitting a basket of SKUs/quantities to a 'deterministic gateway' for approval on behalf of a mission. This is clearly distinct in spirit from the write-oriented sibling place_order, but it never names or contrasts that sibling, so the agent must infer the ordering relationship.

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 description says what is sent ('only SKUs and quantities') and what comes back, which implies a pre-order approval step, but it never states when to call this versus place_order or get_policy, nor any prerequisites such as a valid mission_id. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by stating 'Prices are server-side and authoritative,' which warns the agent not to trust client-side pricing or recompute totals — a genuinely useful behavioral note not present in structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the capability first, then a constraint that matters for correctness. No filler, no restating of the tool name.

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 should hint at return shape, and with four parameters at 25% schema coverage it should explain max_results. It covers the filters adequately but leaves result format and one parameter's behavior undefined, which is the minimum viable rather than complete.

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 only 25%, and the description covers query (text), category, and the rupee unit for max_price_inr ('maximum price in rupees'), but says nothing about max_results, its default of 8, or its 25 cap. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves one parameter undocumented in both places.

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 ('Search') and resource ('products') plus the two filters, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_product or list_categories, but the retrieval-by-text framing is unambiguous.

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 description implies a discovery/lookup use case through 'search by text' plus optional filters, and the schema notes that an empty query returns top-rated items. However, it names no alternative ('use get_product for a known ID') and states no when-not conditions, so routing between analogs is left to inference.

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

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a non-destructive read, and the description is consistent with that (recomputation rather than repair). The word 'every' usefully discloses full-scope, potentially expensive traversal over proposals, verdicts and orders. It does not say how a mismatch is surfaced (exception vs. result flag) or whether verification is incremental.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler and the mechanism stated up front. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it is terse to the point of leaving result semantics unstated.

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 explaining what the agent receives back, and it does not: it never says whether the result is a pass/fail boolean, a list of breaking records, or a thrown error. For a low-complexity, zero-param verification call this is an acceptable but incomplete definition.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to be explained and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the operation is parameterless and global rather than scoped.

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?

Names a specific mechanism (recompute the hash chain) and an explicit scope (every proposal, verdict and order), which tells an agent exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate from any sibling, though the sibling list (catalog/order/cart tools) is largely unrelated to audit verification, so the name plus description still identify it uniquely.

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 guidance on when to run this: no trigger conditions (e.g., after a suspected tampering, before signing off an audit), no prerequisites, no indication of how it relates to the other audit-adjacent tools. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.

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