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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds context they cannot: the tool is a deterministic composite that fans out internally, it returns compressed cryptographic receipts and a unified report, and it is a paid L402 endpoint with a concrete auth-and-retry protocol. That payment/auth disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior an agent must know before invoking.

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 purpose, then routing guidance, then the payment protocol — four sentences with no filler. The alternative-tool sentence and the L402 sentence each carry distinct, actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation, and the description still summarizes the report shape. Combined with the routing guidance and payment protocol, an agent has everything needed to select and successfully call this composite tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents the baseline-vs-comparison roles, the accepted height/date patterns, and the 'latest is not a baseline' constraint. The description only restates the two boundaries and their ordering ('between fromTarget and toTarget'), adding no format, default, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: a composite workflow that executes an end-to-end thermodynamic audit between two named boundaries, plus what it internally produces (signed difficulty deltas, SHA-256 proof receipts, unified cryptographic report). It explicitly contrasts itself with 'individual stratigraphy or proof tools', so an agent can distinguish it from the 15 siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('save LLM context tokens and eliminate multi-step agent orchestration when auditing historical divergence') and an explicit when-not-to-use, routing single-purpose queries to stratigraphy/proof tools. The paid-call condition (HTTP 402 -> pay invoice -> retry with Authorization: L402) is also spelled out.

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