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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the paid model, the `payment_required` challenge behavior, that unpaid calls 'never fabricate data,' that a refusal refunds the debit, the required polling loop until horizon_end, and explicit modeling assumptions (economics_modeled: none; S06/S07 LIVE). This is rich operational context an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 single dense paragraph is not front-loaded — it opens with payment instructions before stating what the tool does — and the instruction 'after paying, poll /v1/resolutions/:id until horizon_end' is stated twice verbatim. Multiple run-on semicolon-joined clauses make it hard to parse, and the repetition is wasted space.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on payment flow, polling, refund semantics, and engine assumptions. It is nearly complete for this paid scan; the main omission is any explicit pointer to alternative sibling tools for related decisions.

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 single `payer` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry it, and it does: it defines payer as a Base address (0x…) and offers alternative carriage via HTTP header or PAYMENT-SIGNATURE. It compensates for the coverage gap, though it does not restate the exact regex/format constraint present in the schema.

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 names a specific resource and action: a 'Funding-anomaly scan across BTC/ETH/SOL' returning per-asset funding (bps), basis (bps) and the S06 engine decision, which is concrete and identifiable. It differentiates itself from generic siblings by naming the S06/S07 engines and the funding/basis scope. Purpose is present but is buried behind an opening payment-mechanics clause rather than front-loaded.

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 clear payment/usage mechanics (pass `payer`, send `x-tollbridge-payer` header, or x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE, then poll /v1/resolutions/:id) and states the tool is 'a policy verdict, not a trade.' However it never says when to choose this scan over siblings such as tollbridge_decision, tollbridge_market_state, or tollbridge_get_intelligence; context is implied rather than routed.

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