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

The description carries the burden since annotations only provide a title. It clearly discloses that this is a paid, deterministic audit (2 USDC via x402), that out-of-scope submissions are refused without charge, and that output is a PASS/WAIT/FAIL verdict with a reproducible verdict_hash. However, it does not mention in the main description that supplying agent_address updates the agent's on-chain trust score — a meaningful side effect — though the schema does document it.

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 longer than minimal but every major component earns its place: use case, exclusions, scope, result format, and cost are all clearly demarcated. Minor redundancy like 'Audit before act' and the heavy all-caps emphasis could be tightened slightly.

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?

The description covers the output contract (PASS/WAIT/FAIL with flagged defects and verdict_hash), the charging model, and refusal behavior, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without an output schema. The trust-score side effect and certificate tag are only handled via the schema, leaving small room for improvement.

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 is 3. The description refers to a 'trade thesis' which maps naturally to the required intent parameter, but it adds no format, syntax, or semantic detail beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 (audit), a precise resource (prediction-market trade thesis), and the exact context (pre-execution before capital is committed). It also explicitly names what it is not for and points to sibling tools, making the tool distinguishable from query_pol_certificates and query_agent_trust without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions: before opening, sizing, or increasing prediction-market positions, and whenever a thesis soundness, falsification condition, or sourced probability is questioned. It also gives explicit when-not-to-use conditions and names the correct alternatives for past verdicts and agent trust scores.

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