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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the Court only observes the payment network and 'does not control your wallet or send the money', plus the credential ('party') and cost ('Free'). It stops short of saying whether the registration is reversible, whether it can be overwritten, or what a mismatch between network/asset and address would do.

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 front-loaded 'Court says I should be paid' framing is atmosphere rather than instruction and slightly delays the actual behaviour. The remaining sentences ('Records your...', credential/cost/source metadata) are compact and earn their place, so the waste is limited to the opening.

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 four-parameter required mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers auth, cost and the non-custodial guarantee, but leaves the parameter contract and overwrite/idempotency behaviour unexplained. Usable, but an agent must open the schema to fill the gaps.

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 0% across four required parameters. The description gestures at two of them (the receiving wallet 'address' and the 'payment network'), but says nothing about asset, why a complianceId is required, or the enum pairing constraints (base/ethereum/bitcoin vs USDC/USDT/BTC). It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Records your receiving wallet address for the order.' That is enough to distinguish it from neighbours like payment_status or set_address_for_service. The leading first-person sentence is flavour rather than definition, but the operative clause is clear.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you register an address so the Court can check when the transfer arrives. There is no explicit when-not condition and no sibling is named as the alternative (e.g. payment_status for checking, or my_address_for_service for service addresses). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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