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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: it returns exactly 3 evidence-ranked results and a compact decision summary, and it serves as a pre-commitment proof. It does not introduce any contradiction with the annotations.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then immediately gives the output shape and the usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description captures purpose and output shape, but it omits the meaning of both parameters and provides no usage details beyond the general 'before full product' framing. For a tool with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call.

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%, and the description does not mention 'q' or 'journeyId' at all. With zero parameter documentation in either the schema or description, an agent has no way to know what values to supply, making this a critical gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect'), identifies the exact resource ('0.01 USDC Base Mainnet x402 proof offer'), and states the concrete outcome ('3 evidence-ranked results plus a compact decision summary'). It also distinguishes itself from the '0.05 USDC full product', which is enough to separate it from the related x402 offer sibling.

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 description clearly frames when to use this tool: as a low-cost proof step 'before you commit to the 0.05 USDC full product'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when the free preview would be more appropriate.

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