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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key non-obvious trait: this is a paid, per-request operation requiring a pre-sent payment. It omits error/failure behavior and rate limits, but the payment prerequisite is the critical behavioral fact.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the payment prerequisite. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the schema field text.

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 paid scraping tool with no annotations and no output schema, the payment flow is covered but the description says nothing about what is returned, handling of scrape failures, or the format parameter's effect. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds relational meaning the schema lacks: wallet is the payer and tx_signature is the signature from the payment that must be sent first. That ordering/causality between parameters is not derivable from the field descriptions alone.

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 ('Scrape a web page via WattCoin's network'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not name or differentiate from any sibling, but no sibling overlaps with scraping, so ambiguity is low.

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 procedural guidance ('send payment first and pass the transaction signature') and points to get_pricing for cost, which is useful context. However, it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives or under what conditions scraping is appropriate.

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