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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description adds settlement details ($3.500 USDC, no charge on failure), offline verification, and the attestation/signature structure. This enriches the behavioral picture without contradicting the annotations.

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 three focused sentences: payload contents, when to use it, and cost/failure behavior. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it slightly restates the title's 'full signed dump' concept.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and the description providing cost, failure semantics, routing/analytics use case, and the sibling lookup alternative, nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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% for the only parameter (includeStale), whose description already explains its meaning. The tool description does not repeat or augment parameter details, which is appropriate; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the exact deliverable ('Whole-Bazaar seller census in one payload'), enumerates the row fields and signature artifacts, and explicitly contrasts with a single-lookup endpoint. An agent can tell it apart from census_verdict without opening the schema.

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 states the trigger condition ('MUST be invoked when an agent needs the complete trust map for routing or analytics') and the exclusion ('Do NOT use for a single lookup (see /api/census/verdict)'). This leaves no ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.

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