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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds valuable detail about the fee formula, rail selection (x402 vs Stripe-hosted USDC), and explicitly states it never creates a payment. This is context beyond annotations, with no contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful detail (fee, currency, rail condition, safety guarantee) with no redundancy or filler.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the core calculation, conditional behavior, and safety profile, making it complete for this relatively simple quote 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 50% with payment_method having a description and bounty_amount_cents having constraints. The description adds context about the 10% fee but does not directly explain parameter formats or relationships. It provides some value but does not fully compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 calculates a fee and total for an expert reward, specifying the 10% RigorLoop fee and Base/USDC currency. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fund_research_bounty by explicitly noting it is a quote-only, read-only operation.

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 implies this is the correct tool for obtaining a pre-payment quote, especially with the conditional logic for x402 vs Stripe. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it before funding.

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