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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes beyond by disclosing that this is a paid x402 service, that payment is required, and that it functions as a paid retry mechanism. This adds material behavioral context about cost and workflow, though it doesn't detail all potential side effects.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and provides the essential workflow without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the high complexity (15 parameters), the description covers the key workflow and payment expectation, while the rich input schema and output schema fill in the details. However, it could have been more complete by briefly noting which parameters are essential (e.g., command, paymentSignature) beyond the required field.

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%, with every parameter (including apiKey, xPayment, paymentSignature) having a detailed description. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: 'Score a command/action with the x402-paid DestructGuard service.' It uses a specific verb ('score') and resource ('command/action'), and the mention of 'DestructGuard' and 'x402-paid' distinguishes it from sibling safety/risk tools like action_safety_quick_gate or mcp_risk_score.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Call get_x402_manifest first, verify the DestructGuard price and buyer policy, then retry the 402 challenge with an x402 payment signature.' This gives a clear prerequisite and workflow, but it does not mention when to avoid this tool or contrast it with alternatives, which would merit a 5.

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