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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: rate limit per wallet, 'The service retains nothing; the baseline stays customer-held', and the caveat that a customer-asserted baseline is flagged as such in the output. It also summarizes the exact returned content (verdict line plus per-status counts) for a tool with no output schema.

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 the free/rate-limited framing and the output scope with no filler, though the first sentence is a long em-dash stack enumerating baseline types that could be tightened. Every clause carries information; none is redundant with the 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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, return payload, limitations, and data-handling policy, which is essentially everything an agent needs to invoke it confidently without guessing.

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%, so the schema already documents URL fetch caps, mutually-exclusive groups, and the signature/digests pairing. The description's added value is limited to framing the baseline modes (paid report, digest block + signature, or second manifest) rather than adding new parameter semantics.

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+resource ('FREE headline drift check' comparing a tools/list manifest against a baseline) and precisely delimits its output (verdict line + per-status counts). It explicitly contrasts itself with the paid variant by naming what is excluded: 'Per-tool differences, the re-grade, and the pattern screen are in the paid drift report.'

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?

Explains the free-tier context (100/day per wallet, caller required) and enumerates the three acceptable baseline forms with their trust implications (service-anchored vs customer-asserted fallback). It does not name the paid sibling tool (manifest_drift) outright, so the routing to the full report is implied rather than explicit.

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