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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose. It mentions the output includes a signed snapshot, payment requirement ($1 USDC), and that it is a discovery audit. It does not contradict safety assumptions. Additional context like Ed25519 signature and payment clarifies usage constraints.

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 description is repetitive, essentially stating the same information twice with the same level of detail. It could be condensed to a single paragraph without losing meaning. The key points are front-loaded, but redundancy harms conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers all major components: registries, types of scores, benchmark, fixes, delta, and payment. It provides enough context for an agent to understand what the audit returns and how it works.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to use the snapshot parameter ('optional signed snapshot from previous audit') and clarifying the seller parameter format. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 clearly states that it audits discoverability of x402 agents across specific registries (CDP Bazaar, 402index), with specific outputs like keyword-relevance rank, metadata-quality score, and top-3 benchmark. It distinguishes itself from related tools like agent_rank_check by focusing on relevance rank not raw volume rank.

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 description implicitly tells when to use it via the question 'Why am I not being found?' and explains what it does vs what it doesn't (not raw settled-volume rank). However, it does not explicitly list sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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