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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one meaningful trait: this is a paid call costing 0.01 RLUSD. However, it never explains the payment flow — whether payment_token must be supplied, what happens when it is omitted, or whether the call fails without payment — which is the critical behavioral question for a metered tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the contents and price are stated immediately. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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 paid tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should at minimum explain the payment/token mechanics and roughly what a report returns. It gestures at the report contents but leaves the payment path and parameter roles entirely unexplained.

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 0% and neither parameter is described. The description says nothing about what 'wallet' identifies (subject vs. payer) or about the role of 'payment_token', leaving the key ambiguity — whether payment_token is required to satisfy the 0.01 RLUSD cost — unresolved in both schema and description.

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 concrete resource ('Full credit bureau report') and enumerates its contents: score breakdown, spend history, risk factors. The word 'Full' implicitly separates it from lighter siblings like bureau_public_score or bureau_get_attestation, but the contrast is never made explicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than bureau_public_score, bureau_get_attestation, or bureau_verify_threshold. The only usage-relevant information is the cost, which tells the agent this is a paid call but not when it is warranted.

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