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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses several behaviors: payment required, code size limit (<=2KB), 1:1 restoration with sha256 equality, and the state fold contents. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on failure, whether the code is stored, or what 'KUDO-wrapped' means operationally. It adds meaningful behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key constraint (PAID $0.01) and the core action. It packs a lot of information into two sentences without redundancy. Slightly dense with jargon (KUDO-wrapped, state fold) but each phrase 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?

For a 2-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main flow, payment requirement, and expected result. However, it lacks details on error cases, payment_tx format, and what the state fold looks like. Given the tool's complexity (payment + code processing), it's adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions payment_tx and code by name and explains their roles ('pass payment_tx + code'), but it doesn't clarify the format of payment_tx (e.g., hex, JSON, transaction hash) or the exact expected code encoding. The description adds some meaning but leaves critical format details undocumented.

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 states a specific action: send code through a KUDO-gate, get it wrapped/restored, and receive a state fold. It distinguishes from siblings by naming 'depth 0' and the gate concept, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The verb 'send' and resource 'code' are clear.

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 gives explicit usage context: pay first, then pass payment_tx + code. It implies this is the shallow gate (depth 0) versus khotem_gate_deep, which is a clear alternative signal. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the payment-first instruction and depth mention provide adequate guidance.

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