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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the paid x402 model, price and settlement timing, spend-limit guidance, verdict semantics, what PROCEED means, what is reported under `evidence` and `unresolved`, the limitation that Ghost does not verify seller identity or delivery, and the important caveat that x402-proxy payment/delivery is not yet verified.

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 description is front-loaded with the purpose and scenario, and most of its length is justified by payment mechanics and caveats. However, it has some redundancy, notably 'Paid per call via x402' followed immediately by 'Payment: $0.01 USDC on Base per call over x402.'

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is substantial: it explains the verdicts, evidence categories, unresolved issues, payment flow, and critical limitations. It could be more complete by defining CAUTION, REJECT, and INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE and the signed receipt format, but it is sufficient to invoke 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%, and the schema already clearly documents `address`, `endpoint_url`, `advertised_amount`, and `payment_signature`. The description reinforces the address/endpoint and quote-vs-advertised price concepts but adds no new syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond the 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 clearly identifies the tool as pre-payment seller due diligence, listing the specific checks it performs (settlement history, payer structure, funding links, endpoint liveness, quote-vs-advertised price) and the verdicts it returns. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 usage condition: 'Use when one named provider or payment address is already in hand and you need a verdict before you pay it.' That effectively distinguishes the scenario from broader search, but it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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