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

With no annotations, the description is the main behavioral signal, and it does add useful context: the operation costs $0.05 and produces a sha256-pinned artifact. However, it does not disclose side effects, persistence of the evidence file, charging conditions, or failure behavior, so it only partially carries the burden.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core facts—inputs, output, hashing, and price—without wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 explained in prose, but the operational contract is under-specified: it is unclear which inputs are required, whether any combination is valid, and what the evidence file is for. For a paid multi-source aggregation tool with three undocumented nullable parameters, this is not enough.

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 needs to explain the parameters, but it only loosely maps 'receipt lookups' to receipt_ids and 'Base on-chain tx proofs' to tx_hashes. The agent_id parameter is not explained, and nothing clarifies whether or how many inputs are actually needed.

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 a specific verb ('bundle') and identifies the inputs (DDG receipt lookups, Base on-chain tx proofs), the output (sha256-pinned evidence file), and the cost. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ddg_tx_status or ddg_receipt_verify_design.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The word 'evidence' implies a dispute/audit context, but an agent is not told when to prefer this over a direct receipt or transaction lookup.

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