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

Annotations only say read-only and open-world; the description adds latency ('under a minute'), data provenance ('public data; inferences labelled'), full pricing mechanics (1.1 USDC on Base via x402 at a specific POST endpoint), and payee wallet verification. That is exactly the context an agent needs before spending money on a call, and nothing contradicts the read-only hint.

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?

Front-loading is excellent: the problem statement, output shape, and input format come first. However, a sizeable tail of the text is promotional/identity material (10% fee set aside for the GHOST77 token, two verification URLs, full payout wallet) that does not help an agent decide or invoke; only the x402 pricing 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return value (health score plus ranked issues with causes and fixes). Inputs, output, latency, cost, and data trust level are all covered, so nothing material is missing for a 2-parameter read-only tool.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds a concrete invocation example and enumerates symptom categories ('no jobs, not in search, jobs expire, setBudget fails') and the diagnostic areas checked, which helps the caller phrase the optional symptom parameter well.

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?

Names a specific diagnostic verb and resource: a health check for a Virtuals ACP agent that returns a 0-100 score plus ranked issues, causes, and exact CLI fixes. None of the sibling tools (token research, funding scans, wallet checks) overlap, so the agent can route here unambiguously.

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 opening question 'Why is a Virtuals ACP agent not getting jobs?' plus the worked example with symptom 'no jobs' establishes the trigger condition clearly. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, but no sibling competes for the same usage, so the missing 'when-not' clause is low cost.

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