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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the score is opaque, raw data is intentionally withheld, and users are warned not to attempt computing spread or fees from the response. This goes beyond the annotations to manage expectations about output limitations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, and every sentence contributes value: action, output format, limitations, and redirect. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 schema's rich parameter descriptions and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what is returned (opaque score, verdict, badge), what is not included (raw data), and the intentional limitation. It could be more complete by explicitly referencing sibling tools or providing example use cases, but it remains sufficient for a typical agent to understand the tool's scope.

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%, with each parameter fully described including aliases. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not repeat or enhance what the 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 clearly states the tool 'Performs a forensic FX audit on a currency transaction' and specifies the output format (opaque score 1-10, verdict, color badge). It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_fx_mid_market_rate and compare_fx_sources by explicitly noting that raw financial data is not exposed, and directs users to the full report elsewhere.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool returns and what it intentionally omits, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. It does mention directing users to ipayx.ai/audit for the full certified report, but that's an external URL rather than a sibling tool reference, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over full_forensic_fx_report.

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