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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses that the tool is paid with a price range, that it returns gate results plus an XDR-1 signed receipt, and that tier is auto-detected from field count. It omits payment/auth mechanics and what happens when zero fields are supplied, despite zero required parameters.

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?

Three tight sentences with no waste: pricing first, then the composite capability, then the return contract and tier behavior. All key facts are front-loaded.

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 nested, zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape (gate results plus signed receipt) and pricing model well. The notable gap is behavior when no gate fields are provided, which an agent could plausibly attempt given zero required parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the enum on tier is explicit. The description adds only a small amount beyond the schema by explaining tier is auto-detected from field count, which essentially restates the schema's 'auto-detected if omitted' note.

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?

States a specific verb and composite resource: runs any combination of IBAN validation, sanctions screening, and EVM address validation in one call. This clearly distinguishes it from the single-purpose siblings (iban_check, sanctions_check, onchain_address_check) as the bundled multi-gate variant.

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 phrase 'run any combination ... in a single call' makes the selection condition clear: use this when multiple gates are needed at once rather than calling individual checks. It stops short of explicitly naming the single-gate siblings as the alternative path or stating when not to bundle.

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