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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds materially more — deterministic rule-based processing with no AI, rejection of secret-bearing input, and the $0.01 USDC on Base x402 payment requirement, which is critical auth/billing context. It also discloses the shape of the output (findings plus fixes), which annotations do not cover.

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?

Roughly 55 words across short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then progressively adding input limit, output, constraints, and price. No sentence is redundant; even the disclaimer and pricing serve selection and setup decisions.

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 no output schema, the description correctly describes the returned findings and includes the payment and rejection behaviors an agent needs before calling. The gap is the undocumented 'request' parameter, which nothing else in the definition explains.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It documents the 'text' parameter well (write-up content, up to 40,000 characters, matching maxLength), but the second parameter 'request' (500 chars) is never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 opening question plus the explicit output list ('claims that cite no evidence, contradictions, missing evidence and documentation gaps, with fixes') states a specific verb and resource. It is unmistakably distinct from the wallet/chain siblings (base_*) and from score_opportunity or triage_invoice; an agent knows this audits a written document for evidentiary support.

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?

It gives clear triggering context ('Does this write-up back up what it claims?') and two scope exclusions: it is a documentation review, not legal/financial advice, and it rejects text containing secrets. It does not name an alternative tool or say when a different audit sibling should be chosen instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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