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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which is counterintuitive for a 'get_' tool, and the description never explains what is destructive or why. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the call costs DAC, which matters for invocation. The core oddity (a getter flagged destructive) goes unaddressed, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Four short clauses, no filler, and the key fact (what the report is, who it is for) is front-loaded. The middle sentence is a comma-spliced list of report contents rather than clean prose, which slightly hurts readability but not economy.

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 burden of describing the return value and does so by naming the report's sections. The payment path is fully covered by the input schema. Remaining gaps are the report's actual format/serialization and the meaning of 'EE resolution', which an external-audit consumer would want.

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 100% and the schema descriptions for auth_token and payment_signature are detailed, including the full x402 first-call/second-call flow. The description contributes only the 'Costs DAC' fact that motivates payment_signature. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource (an external-audience evidence report for one of your decisions) and enumerates its contents (decision metadata, EE resolution, responsibility declaration). That is far more concrete than the bare name. It does not, however, contrast itself against near siblings like get_decision or get_decision_metadata_distribution, so an agent must infer the distinction from the 'external audit' framing.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'external-audience' and 'structured for external audit review' signal this is for external audit scenarios, and 'Costs DAC' warns of a paid call. No alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is given, so routing versus get_decision is left to inference.

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