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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose several things annotations would otherwise cover: the $0.05 USDC on Solana cost, one audit per payment, in-memory-only processing with no storage, and that unsupported factors are reported as NOT ASSESSABLE with a reason. Still missing are the payment mechanics (how the fee is actually settled), what a signed audit looks like as a response, and any failure/refund behavior when an export is rejected.

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?

One dense but well-front-loaded sentence: cost first, then deliverable contents, then the privacy guarantee. The long parenthetical factor list is heavy but each item is substantive rather than filler, and nothing is repeated.

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 paid, no-output-schema audit tool the description does the right work: it specifies the return contents, the NOT ASSESSABLE semantics, the absence of a composite score, and the data-handling guarantee, while all five parameters are covered by the schema. The remaining gap is orchestration context — how the payment is made and how this relates to the criteria/precheck siblings — which an agent still needs.

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 family, form, records, variant and manifest are already fully documented in the schema and the description adds nothing about their formats or valid combinations. It does add contextual meaning around the payload ('the one memory-store export you submit', the five factors derived from it), which keeps it above a purely redundant restatement, but the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it produces a signed scope-hygiene audit of one submitted memory-store export, and it enumerates exactly what the deliverable contains (five factors, coverage block, no composite score). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it never names its obvious siblings scope_hygiene_criteria and scope_hygiene_precheck, so the agent must infer the division of labour from the name pattern.

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?

Use context is implied rather than stated: 'per audit', 'the one memory-store export you submit', and the price signal that this is the paid execution step. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no pointer to running scope_hygiene_precheck first or consulting scope_hygiene_criteria for factor definitions, which is the key routing decision an agent faces here.

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