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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.05 Base USDC), the access method (x402 paid endpoint), and mentions a 'signed receipt' as a deliverable. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or side effects, but given the tool is a data bundle, this is reasonable. The cost and endpoint disclosure adds significant behavioral context beyond a generic description.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the tool's essence ('Full counterparty pack') and includes all critical information (components, usage guidance, cost, endpoint) without any irrelevant fluff. Every word 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?

The tool is a bundle that combines multiple checks, and the description lists all components, clarifies the use case, and gives cost and access details. It does not describe the response structure or potential error handling, but given there is no output schema and the description already mentions a 'signed receipt' as an output, it covers what agents need to know to decide and invoke it correctly. A minor gap is not spelling out what happens on failure, but this is acceptable for a paid data endpoint.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, except reinforcing the address requirement ('Needs an address') and implicitly connecting the 'domain' parameter to the bundle's 'domain' component. It adds no format or validation details, making it adequate but not enriched.

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 states the tool's purpose: a 'Full counterparty pack' with specific components (OFAC, entity sanctions, domain, firmographics, signed receipt). It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by saying 'Use instead of stacking wallet_screen + research,' which names the alternative and the resource bundle being provided.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use instead of stacking wallet_screen + research' indicates a superior alternative to combining other tools. It also states the prerequisite 'Needs an address,' which is a clear condition for use. This leaves no ambiguity about when an agent should invoke this tool.

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