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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context: the cost (USD 0.10 via x402), that it settles only on successful results, and what return fields to expect. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences plus a bracketed note. The first sentence states the core function and lists specifics; the second directly addresses what it does not do and points to an alternative. The payment note is placed at the end, keeping the front-loaded purpose clear. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the tool returns (stage, bone/vertex counts, provenance step count, chain_valid, broken links). It also covers exclusions (no quality grade), alternative tools, and cost implications. For a single-parameter read-only tool, this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter file_path ('Path to mesh file'). The description does not add extra details about the parameter format or constraints, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'mesh file' in the title aligns with 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?

The description explicitly states the tool inspects an avatar's contract state and provenance chain, listing concrete data points (stage, bone/vertex counts, provenance step count, chain_valid, broken links). It also distinguishes itself from axis_validate by clarifying what it does NOT do (return a quality grade). This is a clear, specific verb+resource+scope description.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative: it states that for pass/warn/fail rule results, use axis_validate instead. It also mentions the payment condition for unauthenticated calls, which is relevant for usage decisions. This qualifies as explicit when/when-not/alternatives.

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