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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool costs $0.01, returns a 0-100 score, checks with evidence, and provides recommended fixes. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or if any state changes occur (though audit implies read-only). Missing details on authorization or rate limits are acceptable given the context.

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 one well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the core action ('full scored audit'), then lists verified aspects, return value, cost, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is fully adequate. It covers purpose, inputs, outputs (score, evidence, fixes), cost, and alternative usage. No additional context is needed for an agent to correctly invoke 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% (the only parameter 'url' has a description 'x402 paid endpoint to audit'). The tool description reiterates 'SELLER endpoint (a URL)' and 'x402 paid endpoint to audit' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool performs a 'full scored audit of an x402 SELLER endpoint (a URL)' and lists the verification areas (402 challenge, payment fields, Bazaar discovery metadata, origin's discovery surfaces). It also distinguishes from the 'settlement_assistance' sibling, helping differentiate use cases.

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 recommends using this tool 'to grade an endpoint before trusting/publishing it' and directs users to 'settlement_assurance instead when you already have a transaction hash'. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an alternative sibling.

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