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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals a key behavioral trait: the output will not include private payout secrets, indicating a filtered/sanitized report. It also calls the tool 'public-safe,' which hints at read-only or non-sensitive operation. However, it does not disclose whether network calls are made, auth requirements, or any side effects, so transparency is partial.

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 description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It avoids filler and clearly communicates the core purpose without wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (43 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain return structure, invocation prerequisites, which parameters to use, or how it compares to similar status tools. The brief mention of 'freshness and totals' is insufficient to orient an agent.

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 only 33%, and the description provides no parameter guidance. With 43 parameters, zero required, and no hints about which parameters are relevant (e.g., which URL or seller identifier), the description adds no value for selecting or filling parameters. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 tool's function: returning seller report freshness and totals. The phrase 'public-safe' and 'without private payout secrets' adds a specific qualifier that distinguishes it from other x402 status tools. The verb 'Return' plus the concrete resource 'seller report freshness and totals' is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: when one needs seller report data that is public-safe and excludes private payout secrets. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide clear 'when not to use' guidance. The 'without private payout secrets' suggests an exclusion, but the context is only implicit.

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