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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that the tool is paid ($0.25 in x402/USDC) and that it returns the same content as drift_report. It could mention what happens on payment failure, but the key side-effect and output behavior are disclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded: it opens with the payment requirement, then defines the output, then gives the sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the report content, the cost, the payment rails, and the alternative tool. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inputs, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 states what the tool does: it produces the same full drift report as drift_report, with every finding including file path, line number, the problem, and the suggested fix. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling drift_report by the payment method, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use this tool when paying with x402/USDC, and use drift_report when paying by card or other MPP methods. This directly answers when to choose this tool over its alternative.

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