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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses substantial behavior: it reads only submitted material with no page fetch, account access, merchant contact, or money movement; it requires a wallet proof bound to JSON arguments and the route; it costs 0.10 USDC per call with 10 free calls per rolling 30 days; and it returns an Ed25519 signed receipt. It also states a key limitation: the report matches words, figures, dates, and named items but does not interpret meaning beyond that matching.

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 long but front-loads the purpose and then adds operational details that each carry weight: report shape, named red-flag clauses, endpoint, read-only scope, pricing, auth binding, return receipt, matching limitation, and reference links. It could be tightened, but it is not padded with redundant sentences.

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 tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what the report covers, what it returns, how payment and wallet proof work, what the tool reads and does not read, and the limits of its matching analysis. An agent has the context needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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 input schema already documents all four top-level parameters and the nested fields. The description lists the field names but does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format default behavior or precedence rules, which are already in 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 states a specific verb and resource: submit a non-disclosure agreement as text, fields, or both, and produce a signed report. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling evidence-check tools such as dpa-evidence-check, privacy-evidence-check, or terms-evidence-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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions or sibling routing. The NDA focus implies usage, but an agent must infer it from the resource name rather than from stated guidance.

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