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

Beyond the read-only/open-world annotations, the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: a paid x402/credit rail, the three ways to supply a payer, that an unpaid call returns a structured payment_required challenge (never fabricated data), and that a refusal refunds the debit. This is real behavioral context that annotations do not carry, though it doesn't describe cost magnitude or latency.

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 sentence 'after paying, poll /v1/resolutions/:id until horizon_end' is duplicated verbatim, and the tool opens with payment boilerplate rather than its purpose. The structure is repetitive and not front-loaded on what the tool does.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the payment path is well covered. However, for a 5-parameter tool with nested objects and 20% schema coverage, the missing parameter semantics and absent when-to-use guidance leave the definition only partially complete.

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 only 20%, so the description should compensate, but it only explains 'payer' (Base 0x… address and the x-tollbridge-payer header). The required `asset`, `address`, and the nested `candidate` object are never described, so an agent must infer their meaning entirely from sparse schema fields.

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 the tool returns 'the same account liquidation-proximity distribution as account risk, labelled with the token subject kind', which hints at a token-level risk read. However, the actual purpose is buried under payment and transport boilerplate, and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like tollbridge_liquidation_risk or tollbridge_transaction_risk.

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 explains how to pay and that you must poll /v1/resolutions/:id until horizon_end, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the 30+ siblings. There are no exclusions or selection criteria, only transactional mechanics.

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