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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pricing ($0.005/call) and the key payment/refusal behavior over MCP, which is valuable, but it does not say what a successful response contains, what error is returned on refusal, or what auth/payment details the HTTP surface requires.

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?

The single sentence is compact and front-loads the query and pricing, but the dash-separated payment notes read more like a usage caveat than a clean description of the tool's behavior. There is no wasted filler, but the structure muddles capability with payment routing.

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 status-query tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what is returned or at least what success looks like, and it should clarify bond_id. Instead it mostly explains payment routing, leaving key invocation context missing.

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?

There is one required integer parameter, bond_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It never mentions bond_id, leaving the agent with only the parameter name and no meaning beyond what is obvious.

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?

"Bonded-status query" names a resource and action, but the rest of the description focuses on payment mechanics and never explains what "bonded status" means or how this differs from sibling status tools like slash_status. An agent can infer a status lookup but not the specific purpose.

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 explicitly says paid work is refused over MCP and directs payments to the HTTP x402 surface at POST /status, which is a clear operational exclusion and alternative. However, it gives no guidance on whether this MCP tool has any valid use case, such as a preview, and does not relate it to siblings.

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