Check Estimate Red Flags

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns warnings with recommended actions, is universal across countries/languages, and covers only representative tactics rather than being exhaustive. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and examples. It is bilingual, which adds some redundancy, but the English portion includes extra examples not in the Japanese portion, so the duplication is not pure waste. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simple scope.

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 one required parameter, a full schema description, annotations, and an output schema, the description provides all necessary context for correct invocation. It explains what the tool does, what input is expected, what output it returns, and its limitations. No critical contextual gaps remain.

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% for the single 'text' parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description adds semantic nuance by giving concrete examples (lump-sum, today-only discount, door-to-door, referral pricing) and clarifying that input is wording/expressions from estimates or sales pitches, which goes beyond the schema's brief phrasing.

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 identifies the tool's function: checking whether wording in an estimate or sales pitch matches known overcharge or high-pressure tactics, and returning warnings with actionable advice. It specifies the resource (estimate/sales pitch) and the specific task (red-flag detection), which distinguishes it from broader siblings like audit_estimate or verify_fair_price.

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 gives clear context for use: it applies to wording in estimates or sales pitches in any country/language, and it explicitly limits coverage to representative tactics only. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope and limitations are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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