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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses genuinely useful behavior: the tool is paid (charges the published USDC price once per unique payment authorization) and returns evidence comparability, coverage, and unknowns rather than a score. This explains the cost and non-read-only nature, though the destructiveHint is not spelled out (e.g., what funds are consumed).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison and followed by the output boundary and cost model. Every sentence carries information, though the cost sentence could be tightened.

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 paid, open-world tool with a nested input schema and no output schema, the description covers the output nature and cost well. It omits any explanation of the nested exposure object's fields, which is the largest remaining gap for correct invocation.

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 two required params with nested objects, so the description must compensate. It does loosely map the params (subject = the AI/software agent, proposed_exposure = the credit/deferred-payment exposure), but it never explains the nested Asset, principal, duration, secured, or obligation_type fields, so coverage remains partial.

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 (Compare) and a well-defined resource (attributable economic history vs. a proposed credit/deferred-payment exposure), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_agent_credit_report, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clarifies the output boundary ('never a lending recommendation or credit score'), which implies this is a due-diligence/evidence tool rather than a scoring tool. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or a direct comparison against get_agent_credit_report, leaving the choice between siblings to inference.

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