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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the crucial behavioral facts: the tool is paid via x402 at 0.02 USDC on Base, and the first call is effectively a dry run that returns payment requirements rather than data. That paid/two-phase behavior is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the purpose and report contents come first, then the payment mechanics. The second sentence is slightly compressed (mixing cost, protocol, and the two response modes), but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the report sections and the score, and it explains both the unpaid and paid response paths. Missing only peripheral detail such as latency, caching, or whether a failed verdict still costs the fee.

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 agent_id, chain (default 8453), and payment are already fully documented. The description restates the payment base64/X-PAYMENT mechanism rather than adding syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("due diligence completa de un agente ERC-8004") and enumerates exactly what the report covers: live services and health, metadata, onchain feedback, wallet, red flags, and a 0-100 score. The adjective "completa" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling agent_check_preview, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives a clear decision context ("antes de pagarle o llamarlo") and spells out the two-step invocation flow: without payment it returns requirements, with payment it delivers the report. It does not explicitly route the agent to agent_check_preview for a cheaper/partial check, which is the one missing alternative.

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