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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it is a paid call ($1.00, x402, USDC on Base), returns multiple components (rank, metadata quality score, settle activity, fixes, delta), uses Ed25519 signing, and explains the snapshot mechanism. It does not cover error handling (e.g., seller not found) or rate limits, but for a read-only audit tool, the transparency is above average.

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 a dense, single paragraph with multiple clauses, parentheticals, and a final question. It packs valuable information but lacks clear structure and is somewhat verbose. It could be split into shorter sentences for easier parsing. Every sentence earns its place, but the overall conciseness is average.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool returns: keyword-RELEVANCE rank, metadata-quality score, settle activity, top-3 benchmark, prioritized fixes, and delta. It also includes cost, signing, and the audit's focus. It omits explicit error handling or response format specifics, but for an audit tool, the description is fairly complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context by explaining that the 'snapshot' parameter is a signed snapshot from a previous audit used to compute a delta, but this is largely reinforced by the schema description. Thus, the description adds little beyond the schema.

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's purpose: an audit of x402 agent/seller discoverability across agent registries (CDP Bazaar, 402index). It uses a specific verb ('Audit') and specifies the resource and scope, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling agent_rank_check by emphasizing 'keyword-RELEVANCE rank per category (not raw settled-volume rank)' and the inclusion of a delta vs a signed snapshot.

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: use this when you want to understand why you're not being found and how to improve visibility, as opposed to a simple rank check. It highlights the 'Why am I not being found and how do I climb?' use case and contrasts its ranking methodology with raw volume ranking, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions.

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