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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond that: the $0.25 USDC payment requirement, the GET endpoint using x402 on Base, and the returned data fields. This enriches the agent's understanding of cost and API usage.

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, each with a distinct purpose: what the tool does, what it returns, and who uses it with cost details. No redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter read-only check, the description covers purpose, outputs, payment, endpoint, and use case. With an output schema present and annotations clarifying safety, it leaves no critical gaps.

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?

The schema fully covers the commodity parameter with an enum and description. The description only mentions '20 minerals' without adding additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a DLA strategic stockpile check for 20 minerals and enumerates specific outputs (held status, quantity tonnes, DLA status). This distinguishes it from sibling supply-chain tools by its government stockpile focus and concrete return fields.

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?

It names the intended audience (defense-contractor supply-chain agents) and use case (gauge DoD mineral security), providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or name when not to use it.

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