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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the report is free, only counted once the payment is found on-chain, and effectively costs at least the price of the call it describes. This is meaningful non-obvious context, though post-submission behavior is not detailed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the description is not long, but the word 'free' appears three times: 'Free, and only counted...', 'It is free', and 'Price: Free.' The rhetorical 'no probe can produce' line adds flavor but little operational value. Still, the structure is scannable and generally efficient.

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?

For a tool with only two required parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to decide when to call it, what the cost behavior is, and why it matters. The main gap is the lack of any description of what happens after submission, but this is secondary for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds framing around outcome ('what you got') and on-chain verification, but it does not materially expand the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description opens with a specific action: 'Tell Kortex that you paid a service and what you got.' It clearly identifies the resource (Kortex), the action (report), and the domain (post-payment outcomes). The 'after any paid call' framing also separates it from sibling tools like check or compare, which are about inspection rather than reporting outcomes.

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 'When to use' section is explicit: call after any paid call that went wrong and after ones that went right. It also gives the rationale that reports improve later verdicts. It does not list when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives by name, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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