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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two non-obvious traits: execution is paid ('completed paid execution') and it emits an RVO plus a signed Verification Receipt. That is real context, though permissions, failure modes, and what happens on incomplete execution are unstated.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the tool identity is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the second sentence mixes return-value information with branding.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and no parameters mean the description is the only source of truth, yet it never explains what a dependency 'map' is or what the RVO/Receipt contain. Terms like 'RVO' and 'R/IV' are left undefined, so an agent cannot predict the result of calling it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the 4 baseline applies. No parameter claims are made or 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 leans on jargon ('independent evidence-verification primitive for dependency risk') that restates the tool name rather than stating a concrete verb+resource. It never says what 'map' actually produces — a dependency graph, a risk score, a set of edges — so an agent cannot distinguish it from dependency.monitor or data.flow.verify.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (dependency.monitor, data.flow.verify, provenance.receipt) it should be chosen over. The only implicit signal is the word 'dependency', which does not guide selection.

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