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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses 1-hour result caching with <5ms cache hits, $0.01 per-call pricing, a 5-call free trial, that failed calls are never charged, and that exhausted quota returns a payment-required quote rather than a fatal error, including top-up mechanisms (Stripe link, Base/Solana USDC). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and organized under clear labeled sections, which aids scanning. However, the pricing/trial terms are restated multiple times ($0.01 per call, first 5 free, then re-explained), so some sentences are redundant rather than additive.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description fully covers the billing lifecycle, caching, trial limits, and parameter interplay, leaving nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly unstated.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the PARAMETER INTERACTIONS section adds genuine meaning: use only url during free trials, and supply agent_id (agd_pass_) or tx_hash for paid execution. This encodes the mutual-exclusion/branching logic between optional params that the schema lists but does not relate.

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 a specific verb (Audits) plus the resource (remote agent or MCP URL) and enumerates exactly what is checked: JSON-RPC compliance, latency SLA, OpenAPI schema, and HTTP 402 settlement headers. It also names the sibling get_agent_wallet_status and its distinct role, so the agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, with a named alternative (get_agent_wallet_status) tied to a concrete condition (checking trial quota/prepaid balance). Exclusions for unrelated domains and binary media remove ambiguity.

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