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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses cost ($0.01 USD via x402), latency (milliseconds), and that verification runs deterministic code rules R1–R8, but it does not describe the response shape, error behavior, or what a failed verification looks like.

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?

Four short sentences with zero wasted wording: purpose first, then method, speed, and price. The information is front-loaded and each sentence contributes a distinct fact.

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 paid verification tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers payment, speed, and rule-based method but omits what the verification returns and what R1–R8 actually check. It is adequate to start a call but incomplete for interpreting results.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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?

The description states a specific resource and action: a verifier for paid publications in Colombia, using rules R1–R8. It is clearly distinct from registry or legal-consultation siblings in domain, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool to avoid confusion with verificador_rues__verificar.

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 implies the tool is for checking paid social-media publications, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent must infer the appropriate context entirely from the description's domain wording.

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