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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful operational behavior: cost ($0.05/call), the x402 payment mechanism via X-PAYMENT header, a one-time free call per operator, and plan quotas for cached vs. fresh calls. It also hints at output content ('evidence + route'). It stops short of stating read-only semantics, latency, or failure behavior.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads purpose (access verdict) before commercial details, with zero filler sentences. It is jargon-heavy and run-on, but every clause conveys something actionable and nothing is redundant.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a nested-object parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description does useful work by enumerating verdict values and advertising 'evidence + route' output plus pricing. It still omits the meaning of today/evidence/is_partner and any detail on the shape of the returned evidence, leaving real gaps.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. 'per-site x per-task' loosely maps to the site and task parameters and 'PARTNER-ONLY' hints at is_partner, but today, evidence (a nested object), and the precise semantics of the others are entirely unexplained 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?

The description states a specific function: returning a per-site x per-task access verdict, and enumerates the six possible verdicts (PERMITTED, LICENSED-ONLY, PARTNER-ONLY, POLICY-BLOCKED, COLLATERAL-BLOCKED, UNKNOWN). That is far more concrete than the opaque name 'door_check'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like assemble_evidence or collateral_report, even though it references producing 'evidence'.

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 word 'Pre-flight' implies the tool is called before attempting access, which is useful contextual guidance. Beyond that there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no sibling alternative is named, so the routing decision is left largely to inference.

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