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

Beyond readOnlyHint, the description explicitly says the tool calls nothing, pays nothing, and reads from the API's code. It also discloses uncharged error responses (400 and 422), which is important behavioral context for a paid audit endpoint.

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 front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose, then packs body, limits, price, responses, and usage into a single dense but purposeful passage. Every clause contributes useful information without filler.

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?

For a read-only documentation tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, error behavior, limits, pricing, and how to use the validation path. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is already 100%, the description adds substantial meaning to the optional body parameter by listing allowed pairs, fill fields (ts, fill_price, qty, side), limits, and validation use. This goes well beyond the schema's brief body description.

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 documentation purpose: explaining exactly how to call the execution-audit endpoint, including body format, limits, price, and responses. It also distinguishes itself from an actual audit call by saying it calls nothing and pays nothing.

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?

It clearly tells the agent to use a draft body to check validation first before paying, which is strong usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as verify_execution_report, so it falls just short of fully explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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