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

Discloses critical behavioral traits: no charge without payment_signature, requires a signed authorization from an operator, and advises retrying with the same URL and signature. Also warns about uncertain responses and avoiding duplicate payments. These go beyond annotations, which only state non-readOnly and non-destructive.

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 concise but packs a lot of essential info into a few sentences. Front-loads the purpose and payment method. Slightly dense with multiple warnings, but 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?

For a paid service with potential payment complexities, the description covers prerequisites (payer wallet, operator authorization), protocol (x402), error handling (uncertain response), and pricing (list_services). No output schema exists, but the tool's primary output (llms.txt draft or payment requirements) is implied. Complete 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 covers both parameters fully (URL is required, payment_signature is optional). Description adds meaning: clarifies payment_signature is a base64 x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE from a payer wallet, and that omitting it yields a quote. This enhances the schema's brief descriptions.

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 drafts an llms.txt file, uses a paid x402 service, and requires a URL. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the payment flow and the need to call list_services for pricing, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other run_* tools.

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?

Provides detailed when-to-use instructions: omit payment_signature for a quote, include it after wallet signing, read list_services for current price. It also gives a critical when-not-to: never send a private key, and warns against creating another payment on uncertain responses.

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