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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the opaque nature of the response (score 1-10, verdict, color badge) and explicitly states that raw spread percentages, mid-market rates, and financial data are intentionally not exposed. This adds meaningful behavioral context that the annotations do not cover.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, describing the return format, disclosing what is excluded, and directing to the full report. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value (opaque score and verdict). It also clarifies the absence of financial data and points to where a fuller report can be obtained. Given the tool's simplicity and thorough schema parameters, the description is complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, including aliases. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific details, so it neither detracts nor improves on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents parameters thoroughly.

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 clearly states the tool 'performs a forensic FX audit on a currency transaction' with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by noting it returns an opaque score rather than raw financial data, and points to the full report elsewhere.

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 gives clear context about what the tool does and what it intentionally omits, warning users not to attempt to compute spread from the response. It directs users to ipayx.ai/audit for the full certified forensic report, which serves as an alternative, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide exhaustive when-to-use criteria.

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