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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the pricing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call, failed calls free, payment via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc) and the interpretation rule that empty results are expected.

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?

Front-loads what is read and what is returned, then the interpretive caveat, then pricing. Every sentence carries information; the pricing clause is long but relevant to an agent deciding to spend.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. The description covers purpose, expected results (absence normal), risk interpretation (wildcards = leftovers), and cost – nearly everything an agent needs before calling.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage and an example (www.adobe.com) already in the schema. The description adds nothing about the domain parameter, so the baseline 3 applies – the schema does all the work.

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?

Names the specific resources (crossdomain.xml, clientaccesspolicy.xml), the verbs (reads, lists, flags wildcards), and the scope (public policies). An agent can immediately distinguish it from the DNS, headers, or CORS siblings.

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?

Explains the practical context: these policies are legacy, wildcards usually mean leftovers, and absence is the normal case – useful for deciding whether to call and how to read results. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit 'use when' trigger, so it falls just short of a 5.

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