red_flag_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that it returns warnings with what to do, but does not specify output format or structure. With no output schema, more details on what 'warnings and what to do' look like would improve transparency.

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 two sentences in English (plus Japanese) that front-load the purpose and scope. Every sentence adds value: what the tool does, what it covers, its universality, and its limitation. 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and safety annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains input type, scope, and output. The only minor gap is the lack of output structure details, but given no output schema, this is acceptable.

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 covers the single parameter with a description. The tool description provides additional context on the type of input (expressions from estimates or sales talk) and gives examples, adding value beyond the schema description.

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 tool checks text for known overcharge or high-pressure tactics, listing examples like lump-sum, today-only discount, and explicitly notes it covers representative tactics only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools 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 mentions it works for any language and country and covers only representative tactics, implying it's not exhaustive. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like verify_fair_price or audit_estimate. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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