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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does real work: it discloses a rate limit (100/day per wallet), the keying mechanism (caller wallet), and the exact output ceiling (no line graded, no census returned). It does not describe what an 'assessable' verdict looks like or what happens when the sample fails the published-form test, leaving a modest gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the free/scope framing before the paid alternative. Every clause carries information — cost, quota, output boundary, and routing — with no restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter tool with a nested sample object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers cost, quota, output scope, and the paid alternative, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the shape of the assessability response, which matters because no output schema exists to supply it.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the caller-wallet allowance and the in-memory, never-stored handling of the sample. The description only reinforces 'pass caller' and the requirement that the sample be in the published form, which is marginal added meaning over the schema.

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 — a free headline pre-check of a payments-ledger sample — and immediately narrows the scope to 'assessability only'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ledger_check_check, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

Names the alternative (ledger_check_check) and the condition that selects it: the full signed census is paid, this is the free path. It also gives the allowance (100/day per wallet) that governs repeated calls. It stops short of an explicit 'when not to use' statement, e.g. when assessability alone is insufficient for a decision, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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