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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: x402 exact-USDC payment on Base, the alternative Scout credit rail, payer passed as argument/header/PAYMENT-SIGNATURE, polling /v1/resolutions/:id until horizon_end, unpaid calls returning a structured payment_required challenge instead of fabricated data, refusal refunding the debit, and the published refusal-code taxonomy. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious operational context an agent needs.

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 text is dense and poorly front-loaded: it opens with payment mechanics rather than the tool's purpose. The "LIVE set" enumeration is bloated with verbatim duplicates (X05 five times, X06 five times, X07 five times, etc.), which is pure noise, and the payment sentence is repeated nearly verbatim later in the description.

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 description still covers payment, the credit rail, refusal handling/refunds, and routing to tollbridge_decision. What is missing is a clean statement of how this read differs from the sibling state/intelligence reads; the bloat competes with the useful content.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does for `payer`: it explains the value is a Base 0x… address and three distinct ways to supply it. `chain` (const base) and `address` are only implicitly covered by "on a Base address," which is adequate but less explicit than the payer treatment.

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 core purpose is stated specifically: "Wallet intel on a Base address: the profile read," which is a clear verb+resource. It partially differentiates siblings by routing decision questions to tollbridge_decision, but it never cleanly separates this tool from tollbridge_wallet_state (it lumps them together as "the profile/state reads"). The purpose sentence is also buried behind payment boilerplate, blunting first-glance clarity.

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 does give routing guidance for one case: S09/S10 account decision questions should go through tollbridge_decision with a wallet subject, and "the profile/state reads here are the raw surfaces." However there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus tollbridge_wallet_state or tollbridge_get_intelligence, and no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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