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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: this is a paid tool with tiered pricing ($0.25 base, $0.35 with counterparty), it makes no LLM calls, and its output is reproducible and decision-grade — all context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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 price and payload, followed by the conditional upgrade and chain coverage in two short clauses. Dense with jargon (settle-safe, supply/flow forensics) but no sentence is wasted; the '$0.25 composed Token' phrasing is slightly awkward.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the four memo components plus the chain coverage. Cost and the counterparty upgrade are disclosed. Minor gap: no hint about latency, memo length, or whether results are cached/reusable given the price.

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 100% and the schema already documents chain, address, currency and the counterparty surcharge, so the description adds essentially nothing parameter-level beyond restating 'EVM or XRPL' and the counterparty price bump. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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+resource — a composed token due-diligence memo — and enumerates its contents (verdict, supply/flow forensics, settle-safe screen, narrative risk). The composition implicitly maps onto the sibling tools (token_verdict, forensics_info, settle_safe), but the description never names them, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the bundled alternative to calling the narrower tools separately, and providing a counterparty upgrades the output. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance (e.g. 'use token_verdict for a cheap single-signal check') and no prerequisites stated beyond chain selection.

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