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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the price and rail ($0.01 USDC on Solana), that the result is a signed translation under a versioned ruleset (failure-translation/v1), that there is no composite score, and that artefacts are processed in memory and never stored. It omits what 'signed' attests to and what happens if the submission is malformed or unpaid, which keeps it below a 5.

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 price and unit of sale are front-loaded, followed by what is bought, then the caveats (no composite score, in-memory only). It is dense with domain jargon but every sentence carries information; a slightly tighter phrasing could have folded the storage note into the schema-backed parameter text.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return shape: a reason class, a retry verdict from a fixed three-value set, and the raw reason verbatim. Payment mechanics and data-handling are covered, leaving only response format/signing verification details unexplained.

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 single 'outcome' parameter is fully documented as a nested object, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds marginal meaning by spelling out in prose which artefacts are consumed (HTTP status/headers, facilitator error body, original payload's nonce) and referencing a 'published submission form', but it does not clarify optionality or which artefacts are required for which reason class.

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 operation on a specific resource: submitted outcome artefacts from one failed paid call are mapped under failure-translation/v1 to a reason class and a retry verdict. The concrete outputs (RETRY / DO-NOT-RETRY / RECONCILE-FIRST, raw reason verbatim) make the tool's function unmistakable, but it never names its nearest siblings (failure_translator_precheck, failure_translator_criteria), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 by the phrase 'per failed-call outcome' and the enumerated artefacts (re-issued 402, facilitator error body), which tells the agent this runs after a failed paid call. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of how this differs from precheck or criteria, so an agent facing a failure must guess which of the three failure_translator_* tools to call.

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