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

Without annotations, it still discloses pricing (first verdict free once per operator) and payment settlement over x402 via POST /readiness. But it omits whether the call creates or mutates state, idempotency behavior, and what happens on payment failure.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the verdict purpose before payment details. No wasted words, though the payment sentence could be contextualized more clearly.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description never describes verdict shape or fields; parameter semantics also lack format details. For a paid verdict endpoint with no annotations, this leaves key call-preparation information 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?

The sole `agent` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only says 'for one agent' without specifying identifier format or source. It adds little beyond the schema's string type.

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 it returns a readiness verdict for a single agent and clarifies it combines inventory and screening. It is a specific resource, though it does not explicitly position itself against siblings like convoy_screen or convoy_status.

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?

Mentions only free-first-once and x402 payment; it gives no guidance on when to call this versus convoy_screen/status or on prerequisites such as inventory needing to exist.

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