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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the semantics of the signature (proves HirePulse issued it, not ownership), the deliverable (expiry + public verification key), and a concrete cost ($0.005 USDC via x402). This is exactly the operational context an agent needs. The payment side effect is a mild tension with readOnlyHint but does not rise to a direct contradiction since the tool only computes/emits a document.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then the crucial limitation, then deliverable and cost. Every sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be restated, and the description covers purpose, scope limits, deliverable contents, and payment mechanism. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter already carries a precise description ('Public domain without scheme, path or port'). The description adds only the framing 'merchant domain', which is marginal value over the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and artifact ('generate a signed public-evidence statement for a merchant domain'), and it explicitly disambiguates from the trust-check siblings by stating it does not verify ownership, employees, or purchase safety. An agent can immediately tell this issues an evidence badge rather than performing an assessment.

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?

'Use to generate...' gives a clear trigger condition, and the scope disclaimer steers the agent away from treating it as a trust/verification tool. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative tool or state a when-not-to-use condition, which keeps it below a 5.

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