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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a report-producing check, that the report is signed, and that each call costs $0.25 USDC. It does not overpromise mutations or side effects.

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?

One front-loaded sentence conveys the trigger condition, report contents, output form, and pricing. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given a one-parameter schema and no output schema, the definition supplies the essential call context: purpose, contents, signed report, and cost. The parameter remains somewhat open-ended, but the tool is simple enough that the description is not incomplete.

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 input schema already describes the single 'task' parameter at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to re-explain it. The description adds the agent-check framing, but not detailed instructions on formatting the task text; baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific operation—pre-hire due-diligence on an agent—and states the decision context (before granting real spend authority). It differentiates itself from generic due-diligence/vetting siblings by naming agent-specific contents: settlement history, dispute rate, and flagged incidents.

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 phrase 'before you delegate it real spend authority' gives an explicit condition for use. It does not name sibling tools or spell out when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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