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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a 'multi-hop parse' that is hand-verifiable, advises to verify before acting, and mentions a payment of $0.50 USDC on Base mainnet. This goes beyond basic read/write hints to include cost and verification requirements.

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 information-dense but not verbose. It starts with the purpose, then inputs, process, outputs with roles, a caveat for verification, and finally the payment note. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without 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 tool's complexity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description covers what the tool returns (collateral inventory and buyer actions per role) and mentions the payment. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when to call this tool, though it could be slightly more detailed on the output structure.

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%, and the description adds value by explaining that 'link' is preferred for parsing the assignor/case, 'entity' is used to override or when no link is available, and 'state' is for the recorder lookout. These enrich the schema 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 builds a 'full WIND-DOWN ASSET / COLLATERAL MAP for one ABC/receivership case,' specifying the verb 'build' and resource 'asset/collateral map.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like abc_distress_feed and abc_find_notices, which are about finding notices, and warn_liquidation_map and warn_plant_deaths, which are different in scope.

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 explicitly tells agents to pass the notice link from abc_distress_feed/abc_find_notices and/or the assignor entity name. It implies the tool is for building the asset map once a notice is found, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives. However, the context is clear enough.

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