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 disclose a critical behavior: paid verdicts are refused over MCP and delivered out-of-band via x402 on GET /check. That is useful, non-obvious context. It still doesn't say what calling this tool with an agent actually returns (an explanation? an error?) or whether the call itself is free, so gaps remain.

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 with the most important fact (paid verdicts are refused over MCP) front-loaded after the purpose clause. No filler, though the semicolon clause packs two ideas that could be split for scanability.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both behavior and parameters, and it leaves the return value and the 'agent' argument entirely unexplained. For a tool whose name promises a check, the agent can't predict what a successful call yields.

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% for the single required 'agent' parameter, so the description must compensate — but it never mentions 'agent' at all. An agent has no idea whether this is an agent ID, name, or address, or how it relates to the reliance check.

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 names a resource ('paid reliance-check path') and a verb ('Explains'), but the tool is called continuity_reliance_check while the description says it merely explains the path rather than performing a check — an agent can't tell from this whether it gets a verdict or documentation. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like continuity_pricing or continuity_verify_certificate, which sound equally relevant to relying on a verdict.

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 implies when the tool is relevant by stating that paid verdicts are refused over MCP and must be obtained via x402 on GET /check, which is genuine routing guidance. However it never says when to call this versus continuity_pricing or continuity_verify_certificate, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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