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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar. The description adds real value by stating the return contents (risk tier, missing evidence, prioritized controls, human-gate verdict) and explicitly that no order is created and no payment requested, reinforcing the non-mutating profile.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with 'Free:' and the core action. No filler, though the free/no-payment point is stated twice (prefix and final clause), slightly redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully summarizes return values, and it covers the no-side-effect guarantee. However, given a complex nested input with low description coverage, it leaves the caller without guidance on how to populate transaction and evidence fields.

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 only 33% and the description says nothing about the three parameters or the nested transaction/evidence structure. The nested enums (autonomy, reversibility, data_sensitivity) carry meaning that the prose never explains or compensates for.

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 ('assess') plus resource ('a proposed autonomous transaction') and names the timing ('before money moves'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling *_order_* tools by declaring itself free and side-effect-free ('Creates no order and requests no payment').

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 clear context for use ('assess... before money moves'), implying it is the pre-flight check to run before invoking the paid order siblings. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use after or when this tool is insufficient, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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