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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly stating 'it never calls an extraction provider.' It also discloses what the response contains: an account-specific executable-now plan, a broader option, readiness, evidence, assumptions, and warnings. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and output content.

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 carry the full value: the purpose and trigger condition are front-loaded, the return contents are summarized, and the read-only guarantee is stated plainly. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by summarizing the return shape: an executable-now plan, a broader option, readiness, evidence, assumptions, and warnings. Combined with full schema coverage and clear read-only annotations, an agent has enough context to decide whether to call it. It could be slightly richer about what 'broader option' means, but it is not a material gap.

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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only indirectly references monthlyExtractions through 'projected monthly volume.' The schema already documents minQuality and minCompletion, so the description adds no extra semantic value for parameters.

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 ('Discover and compare') and a clear resource ('web-extraction procurement options'), then enumerates the exact decision needs it addresses: price, quote, budget, vendor mix, provider allocation, or sourcing plan. This clearly distinguishes it from execution or billing siblings even without naming them.

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 explicitly frames when to use the tool: 'when an agent or user needs a price, quote, budget, vendor mix, provider allocation, or sourcing plan for scraping URLs at projected monthly volume.' It gives clear context and even indicates this is a planning/comparison step rather than an execution step, though it does not name specific alternatives or exclusions.

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