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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the POST route, the read-only boundary of the material analyzed, the paid x402 access model and price, the free-call allowance, wallet-proof binding, and the Ed25519 signed receipt. It also clearly limits the report to matching words, figures, dates, and named items rather than interpreting meaning.

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 dense but front-loaded with the purpose and expected report content, then moves to operational constraints and payment details. Most sentences carry useful information, though the paragraph is long and could be broken up to improve scanability.

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 lack of an output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the report contains and how the tool behaves, including payment and receipt mechanics. It is nearly complete, though it would benefit from explicit sibling differentiation and perhaps a clearer indication of the report's exact shape.

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 schema already documents text, label, and format with constraints and the format enum default. The description adds report-level context but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score 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 action and resource: submit an SLA or service terms text and receive a report checking uptime commitments, credit terms, exclusions, notice deadlines, and conflicting figures. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as terms-evidence-check or contract-diff-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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'submit an SLA or service terms text' and by the DiligenceOps context, so an agent can infer that this is for SLA diligence reviews. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives for similar evidence-check or terms-check tools.

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