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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing cost (0.10 USDC per call on Base), a free tier (10 signed-wallet calls over rolling 30 days), the endpoint (POST /api/mcp-diligence-rail), and negative behaviors: no server connection, no callbacks, no document retrieval, no signed attestations, no authority granted. It does not address rate limits or return shape, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose sentence is buried behind pricing, and the same non-authority disclaimer is asserted three times ('This does not connect to a server or grant authority,' 'This adapter grants no authority,' 'This current operation is a bounded computation on caller-supplied data'). That redundancy crowds out the front-loaded statement an agent actually 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?

It covers pricing, boundaries, endpoint and credential expectations for a paid computation tool, which is substantive. But with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, it leaves the input contract and the result of the inventory (what the flagged findings look like) unexplained.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does only partially: 'Inventory submitted MCP tool declarations' implies the single 'tools' array input. It says nothing about the constraints encoded in the schema (maxItems 16, 64-char name pattern, 256-byte description limit, name-required rule) that are consequential for correct invocation.

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+resource: 'Inventory submitted MCP tool declarations and flag missing or consequential annotations.' This is a recognizable auditing action, though it is buried mid-paragraph behind pricing boilerplate. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like wever_diligenceops-paid-run or wever_permission-ledger, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Offers some routing context ('Free computation: /api/mcp or /api/service-resolver' and 'the Labs MCP and resolver computation paths remain free'), which implies when to use the free paths vs this paid one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no stated exclusions, and no naming of the sibling tools it competes with in the diligence/ledger family.

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