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

Beyond the annotations, it declares what is read and not read ('no network request, fetch, wallet or merchant lookup, order, payment or external write'), the cost and free tier (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), the auth binding required (X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and route), and the return format (report with Ed25519 signed receipt). That is materially more than readOnlyHint/destructiveHint convey.

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 content is front-loaded: what to submit, what the report returns, and the safety/scope limits come before pricing and URLs. The middle sentence is a dense multi-clause run-on that could be split, but nearly every clause carries operational information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fully describes the return values, the itemized matched fields and named open points, and the signed receipt. Combined with payment, auth-proof, and read-only guarantees, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing for a two-required-parameter nested tool.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters, including records_as_of and window_minutes. The description reinforces which checkout fields matter and the role of export timing, but adds little syntax or format guidance for the nested orders records beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is 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 verb (compare/submit) and resource (a timed-out or ambiguous checkout against merchant order records) and enumerates the three exact outcomes it returns: matching_order_found, no_matching_order, indeterminate. An agent can distinguish this from sibling evidence-check tools without opening the schema.

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 scopes the trigger clearly ('submit one timed-out or ambiguous checkout') and states the exclusion 'Records comparison only; the merchant is never contacted and no order is placed', which steers an agent away from any execution tool. It does not name a specific sibling alternative or a when-not-to-call condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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