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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool runs live checks, performs multiple verifications, and returns a score and evidence. It does not explicitly state if it is read-only or any rate limits/costs, but given the input (URL only) and nature (diligence), it is likely non-destructive and safe.

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?

Three concise sentences: first sets context, second enumerates checks, third defines output. No redundant words. All information is front-loaded and efficiently packaged.

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 (multiple checks, scoring) and lack of output schema, the description covers inputs and outputs adequately. It could benefit from detailing the evidence structure, but it provides sufficient context for tool selection.

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?

Only one parameter (url) with no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description explains the URL's purpose (endpoint to check) but adds no additional constraints beyond the URI format. It provides context but lacks detailed validation hints or examples.

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 defines the tool's purpose: running live diligence on an x402-metered endpoint before payment. It lists specific checks (spec compliance, price baselines, on-chain address, directory presence, infra hygiene, resale detection) and outputs (score, verdict, per-check evidence), distinguishing it from siblings like compare_price and reseller_check.

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 states 'before you pay it,' indicating the primary use case. It implicitly suggests when not to use (after payment), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools exist for specific subspects, but no guidance on when to prefer them.

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