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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature, x402 payment challenge, fallback options, and deprecated fields. However, it omits side effects, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent, though the read intent is clear.

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 purpose and output fields, followed by payment details, an example, and deprecation note. Each sentence adds value, though the text could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for payment options).

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return fields and payment behavior. The example aids usage. Missing parameter documentation and lack of sibling comparisons are minor gaps for a tool with moderate complexity.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions agent_id in the example and references x402_payment as a fallback, but does not describe api_key's behavior or default values. Two of three parameters lack meaningful explanation.

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 the tool provides 'the evidence view for one agent before trusting it' and enumerates the output fields (estimate, confidence, explanation, collusion suspicion), making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like guild_best_agent or guild_check.

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 explains payment options and that the user applies their own threshold, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over other guild tools. The usage context (paid read, free in soft-launch) is clear but lacking comparison to alternatives.

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