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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally. It discloses that the user's wallet will be charged ('PAID'), the tool fails closed ('no valid settled payment, no evidence'), and the fallback behavior when x_payment is missing. This is far beyond a generic 'resolve' claim.

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 every sentence adds value: payment, input format, output, fail-closed behavior, and fallback. It is not overly long, and the most critical information ('PAID') is front-loaded.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains what the response will contain (verifiable evidence, optional certificate with verify_url) and the failure mode. It assumes some familiarity with x402 protocol but is otherwise complete for an agent to decide when to invoke and what to expect.

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 already covers blocker_id and the product enum (67% coverage). The description adds valuable semantics for x_payment ('base64 X-PAYMENT header value your client produced') and for product=certificate ('anchored certificate with verify_url'), which are not in the schema. This meaningfully improves parameter understanding.

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 this tool submits a signed x402 payment payload to resolve a blocker and receive independently verifiable evidence. It uses specific verbs ('Submit', 'receive the resolution') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the payment/resolution step, while laen_find_blockers and laen_quote cover discovery and quoting.

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 on when to call: after producing a signed X-PAYMENT header, or if no x_payment is provided, it returns 402 requirements. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the workflow is implied: quote, then resolve with payment.

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