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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavior disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool returns allow/review/block, what evidence types are included, and that it is decision support rather than legal or transaction approval. It does not disclose authentication or rate-limit behavior, but the essential behavioral contract is present.

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?

Two sentences, both substantive and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase adds value: the business context, the decision categories, the evidence types, the protocol context, and the explicit limit that this is not legal or transaction approval.

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?

Without an output schema, the description still conveys the decision categories and the nature of the returned evidence, which is sufficient for an agent to gauge expected results. Parameters are fully documented in the schema. Minor gaps like auth requirements or rate limits remain, but they do not block correct selection or invocation.

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 the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the three parameters. The description adds useful context like 'company-domain consistency' and 'RDAP domain evidence', which indirectly signals how the domain parameter is used, but it does not add significant new meaning on top of the schema.

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 opens with 'Verify vendor identity before paying', pairing a specific verb with the resource and the business context. It also enumerates concrete checks (KYB, supplier risk, counterparty) and the expected decision output, so an agent can immediately understand what the tool accomplishes.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'before paying' and for 'payment safety decision support'. There are no sibling tools and no alternative to contrast, so stating the intended moment of use and the qualification 'not legal or transaction approval' provides clear usage context even without exclusions.

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