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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the $0.05 per-call price, USDC-on-Solana via x402, the exact MCP flow (call unpaid to receive the PaymentRequired challenge, retry with _meta["x402/payment"]), and the fact that unknown service ids are answered free before payment. This also explains why readOnlyHint is false despite the read-like nature of the tool, so the flags are not contradicted.

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?

Front-loads what the report contains, then the pricing and payment flow, then the HTTP equivalent — a sensible order with no filler. The x402 retry instruction and HTTP endpoint are procedural but earn their place for an agent that has to actually pay and call it.

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, no-output-schema tool, the agent knows what it returns, what it costs, how to satisfy payment, and what happens on a bad id. The remaining gap is comparative positioning against the other adc_* tools, which would help an agent choose correctly in a crowded namespace.

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 already defines service_id as the toll prefix slug, so the description does not need to restate that. It does add value by specifying behavior for an unknown service_id (answered free, before payment), which is semantic information about the parameter the schema cannot express.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deep verification report for one service in the Agent Data Core store') and then enumerates the report's contents (verification state/evidence, health, delivery proof, demand, scorecard, endpoint counts, record-level sources). That enumeration is what separates it from list-style siblings like adc_shortlist and adc_snapshot_descriptor without opening their schemas.

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 is only implied: you call it for deep diligence on a single service. The description spends most of its second half on payment mechanics rather than telling the agent when to pick this over adc_shortlist or adc_snapshot_descriptor, and there are no explicit exclusions. The free-unknown-id note gives a useful edge-case rule, but no selection guidance.

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