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 the auth requirement (account Bearer token) and cost behavior (trial vs pack credit vs x402 X-PAYMENT), which an agent needs before invoking. However it says nothing about what the scan does to the target, whether it is load-generating or destructive, failure modes, or latency — significant gaps for a tool that fires requests at a staging host.

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 dense sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by auth and billing requirements — every sentence carries weight. The x402/pack-credit jargon is compact but slightly opaque without parameter context.

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 5-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent unable to fill in amount, burst_n, or shape meaningfully. It covers the invocation prerequisites but not the semantics needed to call the tool correctly.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely doesn't: target_id, amount, and burst_n receive no mention at all. Only 'single'/'cross' (tier) get indirect meaning via the billing sentence, and the shape enum values (same-account, multi-account, cross-surface) are never explained.

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?

States a specific verb (run) and resource (BurstProof burst scan) and adds scope — 'against your verified staging target' — which distinguishes it from the sibling credit-fetch tool. The product name 'BurstProof burst scan' partially restates the tool name, but the staging-target framing gives the agent enough to know what it does.

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?

Provides prerequisites (Bearer token) and billing modes (trial / pack credit / x402 REST) but never says when to choose this over burstproof_get_pack, nor which tier/shape to pick in which situation. The billing sentence hints that 'single' maps to the trial and 'cross' to a pack credit, but that inference is left implicit.

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