Earn as a proxy shopper

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them while adding genuinely new context: 'Local, no network, nothing is started.' It could say more about the plan's size or format, but the safety/idempotency profile is well-covered.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose before the content list, and the trailing 'Local, no network, nothing is started' is a useful scoping qualifier. The embedded list is dense but every item earns its place by telling the agent what the plan will contain.

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 read-only, side-effect-free plan generator with no output schema, the description tells the agent the plan's contents, that nothing is executed, and what the follow-up step is. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 (name, fee_bps, regions, cash_regions) are already documented in the schema. The description only lightly gestures at them ('card or cash regions', 'fees'), adding no new syntax, format, or constraint detail. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return a step-by-step plan to earn fees as a proxy shopper') and then enumerates exactly what the plan contains (requirements, fees/risks, status, config file, listing path). This clearly distinguishes it from action siblings like fund_order or accept_quote, and it names registry_entry as the natural follow-up.

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 context ('Local, no network, nothing is started') and routes the agent onward with 'how to get listed through the registry (then registry_entry)'. It doesn't state explicit when-not-to-use conditions against other informational siblings like network_info, so it falls short of a full 5.

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