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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the cost, payment method, output type (signed receipt), and input requirements. It does not contradict any annotations. However, it could mention potential rate limits or confirmation that the audit is read-only.

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 somewhat repetitive, with the first paragraph covering all details and the second paragraph summarizing similar points. It could be more concise by merging the two. However, information is front-loaded and the structure is logical.

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 (multiple data sources, verdict, signed receipt), the description covers the main deliverables and inputs. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by listing report components. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and scope.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds context to the parameters: 'seller' can be wallet or domain with examples, and 'depth' has clear options ('shallow' ~200 settlements, 'deep' ~500). This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema 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 the tool performs a deep audit of x402/ACP sellers, producing a full report including settlement reputation, advertised endpoints, liveness, web reputation, and a verdict. It distinguishes itself as deeper than a pass/fail badge, and the verb 'audit' is specific and appropriate.

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 implies usage context ('before trusting it') and mentions pricing ($0.50 per call). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling tools like agent_due_diligence or x402_seller_trust, providing clear but not exhaustive guidance.

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