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

With no annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral trait that it does not process payment and only returns a URL. This is a critical distinction from a purchase tool. It doesn't discuss side effects or error behavior but the main caveat is clearly stated.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second states the critical caveat. No filler words.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (returns a URL, doesn't take payment). It could mention return format or error conditions, but the core workflow is adequately specified for an agent to use 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of all four parameters with descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'resolve' and clearly states the tool converts a resale listing into an x402 purchase endpoint URL. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like agentlux_purchase which handle the actual 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?

The description explicitly tells the agent that the tool does not take payment and instructs to use the returned URL with x402, establishing a clear workflow. It does not name alternative tools directly but the contrast with payment-taking tools implies when to use this one.

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