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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses cost/auth ('$0.015 over x402... Professional API key served free') and a real behavioral trait ('Refuted mappings are kept in the graph rather than deleted'), but omits return shape, pagination, and any error or auth-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?

Reasonably sized, but the billing sentence is inserted mid-paragraph and interrupts the flow between the concept and the 'refuted mappings are kept' rationale. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the pricing aside crowds the structure.

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?

The tool has three params at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, so the description should do more to explain inputs and results. It explains the concept and data-retention behavior well, but leaves the parameters and the returned structure undocumented.

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 three parameters. The phrase 'for a pair' vaguely gestures at source/target, but their expected format (framework identifiers vs names) is never stated, and the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all in the 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 clearly states the resource: 'The mappings that were proposed for a pair and then refuted, each with why it failed', which is a specific verb+resource distinct from siblings like agent_crosswalk_pair and agent_crosswalk_provenance. The poetic opener 'What was claimed and did not hold' is less precise but the following sentence resolves it.

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 offers implicit guidance ('This is the check worth running on any coverage claim') and names free alternatives for cost reasons, but does not say when to choose this over the closely related agent_crosswalk_pair or agent_crosswalk_provenance siblings, nor what conditions select it.

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