Online shop check

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description correctly focuses on what they don't say: it fetches several pages like a browser, takes 5-20s, and returns signals rather than proof, including the specific caveat about CUI copying. The remaining gap is minor since annotations carry the read-only story and no output schema is promised.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question, then the data sources, then the output, then the routing and caveats. Dense but every sentence carries operational content; nothing is restated filler.

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 must describe returns and does: a risk level (high/medium/low/unknown) with red_flags, warnings, good_signs, plus the underlying data. The latency and evidence-limitation caveats round out what an agent needs before calling it.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions reading the CUI off the site, which loosely motivates the optional cui parameter, but adds no syntax or fallback detail the schema lacks.

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 question it answers ('Is an online shop legit?') plus the concrete resources it consults (ANAF, Portal Just, Wayback Machine) and the verdict shape it returns. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like company_lookup and court_cases, which cover single facets of the same investigation.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use this first for "e țeapă?" questions, then the other tools to dig deeper.' This gives both the trigger condition and the ordering relative to the sibling tools, leaving nothing to inference.

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