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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds critical operational context annotations cannot: the $0.25 USDC per-call cost, x402 v2 on Base, and the required PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header or endpoint. For a paid tool this payment/auth disclosure is exactly the missing piece.

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 the core purpose and output shape, which is good. However, the full French restatement and the HTTP/payment mechanics add bulk, and the value proposition is repeated (per-question risk plus fixes appears twice), so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by naming the overall 0-100 risk, per-question breakdown (risk, why, fix), and general tips. Combined with payment details, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the text/url exclusivity remains implicit.

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 60%, and the description compensates by naming the accepted inputs (text or url), the optional grade, subject, and the lang enum values fr|en. It adds useful framing beyond the schema, though it does not clarify mutual exclusivity between text and url.

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: assesses whether a homework assignment can be AI-completed, returning an overall risk score and per-question breakdown. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like extract, summarize, and translate, which perform unrelated operations.

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?

Specifies the audience ('For teachers and schools') and both accepted input modes (paste text or public PDF URL), plus the 'No student data' constraint. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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