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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses non-execution of vendor tools, no safety certification, that metadata is 'live,' and the exact cost ($0.10 USDC on Base). It omits return format, auth requirements, and caching behavior, which a no-annotation tool ideally would cover.

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?

The deliverable and its components are front-loaded, followed by scope limits and cost. It is dense but each clause carries information; no filler or repetition.

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 composite tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and boundaries but leaves parameter meaning and return structure undocumented. An agent can decide to call it, but cannot confidently construct arguments for cik/ticker/since from the description alone.

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 0% for four parameters, and the description compensates poorly. It implies mcpUrl (metadata) and cik/ticker (SEC evidence) but never defines 'since' or explains formats, defaults, or optionality of cik/ticker/since. The heavy lifting is left to a bare schema.

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 names a specific deliverable ('decision-ready due-diligence dossier') and enumerates its contents: live MCP metadata, tool-risk preflight, DNS/CAA/certificate evidence, and optional SEC filing evidence. This clearly distinguishes it as a composite vetting tool, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with its sibling preflight/evidence tools.

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 gives a clear trigger condition – 'before an agent adopts or pays an MCP vendor' – and a when-not in 'Does not execute vendor tools or certify safety.' It stops short of naming alternative tools for narrower needs (e.g., payment or domain preflight), so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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