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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not idempotent, consistent with a tool that generates a decision. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns ALLOW, REVIEW, or DENY with evidence and confidence, and clarifies that REVIEW signals insufficient evidence. It does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or whether the evaluation depends on external data that could be stale, but the output semantics are unusually well specified for a non-read-only tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and trigger, followed by the return values and a precise definition of REVIEW. No filler or redundancy.

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 5-parameter decision tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, return values, and the ambiguous REVIEW case. It omits what evidence is returned, how confidence is computed, and whether the call has side effects (e.g., logging, monitoring creation). These gaps are moderate given the tool's complexity, but not fatal for an agent to invoke it 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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters including action examples and amount semantics. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, though it does connect the action parameter conceptually to the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high 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 states a specific verb ('evaluate') and resource ('agent counterparty') and scopes it to a clear trigger ('before an irreversible economic action'). It enumerates concrete examples (paying, hiring, delegating, releasing escrow, granting rights) that distinguish it from sibling tools like issue_economic_passport or verify_economic_passport, which appear to be credential operations rather than pre-action risk evaluation.

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?

It clearly states when to use it ('before an irreversible economic action') and defines the meaning of the REVIEW outcome for decision routing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like agent_economic_history or record_outcome, leaving some ambiguity about whether this is a pre-check or a post-hoc analysis tool.

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