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

Thoroughly describes the output components (risk dossier, signals, score, verdict, recommendation, signed receipt) and mentions pricing and payment method ($0.50 per call, x402 USDC on Base). No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden and does it well.

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?

Every sentence adds value: purpose, output breakdown, use cases, pricing. Front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Not overly verbose.

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?

Explains return values in detail despite no output schema. Could be more structured (e.g., mention JSON format), but sufficiently complete for a one-call due diligence tool.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds examples for target and optional context/target_type but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool vets entities (company, crypto project, counterparty, domain) and produces a risk dossier with synthesis, signals, risk score, verdict, and recommendation. Specifically distinguishes from siblings by focusing on due diligence and replacing manual searches.

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?

Explicitly says 'vet before engaging' and describes what the tool replaces. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use or compare with sibling tools that may overlap (e.g., sanctions_screen, crypto_token_safety).

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