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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the $0.02 USDC per-payload price, that payment buys exactly one lint of exactly one payload, that the payload is never signed and never stored, and that findings are checked against a published policy table including the PayAI boundary. It is silent on latency, failure/refund behavior, and what a passing versus failing result looks like, which keeps it short of 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?

Two dense sentences with the price and unit-of-payment front-loaded, followed by scope and then the safety guarantees. Every clause carries information, though the phrasing is jargon-heavy ('descriptor form', 'PayAI boundary') and would read faster with lighter punctuation.

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, paid preflight tool with no output schema, the description supplies the cost model, the input contract, the checks performed, and the non-persistence guarantees. What is left unstated is the shape of the returned findings and what happens when a check fails, which matters somewhat given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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% for the single 'artefact' property, and the schema already states it is processed in memory, never stored, never signed. The description restates that constraint and adds 'descriptor form' for SVM, but contributes no new structural detail about the nested object's expected shape. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 signed pre-flight lint of exactly one unsigned SVM payload submitted in descriptor form, and enumerates the check families (instruction-shape, compute-budget, fee-payer). The 'SVM' qualifier plus the descriptor-form requirement distinguishes it from payload_preflight_evm without the agent needing to open 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?

The description makes the applicable scope clear (an SVM payload in descriptor form, one per payment) but never says when to choose this over payload_preflight_evm, payload_preflight_precheck, or payload_preflight_criteria. Usage is implied by the chain name rather than stated, and there are no explicit exclusions.

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