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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is unsigned, that caller-supplied facts are unauthenticated, and that an ALLOW verdict does not authorize a trade. It doesn't state determinism, cost, or any rate/limits, but the trust-boundary disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations would otherwise have to provide.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the most important caveat. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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?

Behavioral framing is strong, but with no output schema, no annotations, and a large nested input/policy schema at 0% description coverage, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the policy contract and result shape. It is adequate for understanding intent but not for constructing a correct call.

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% on two deeply nested required parameters (input and policy). The description only alludes to 'supplied ... evidence' and 'explicit policy' without explaining the policy structure, required fields, or how evidence/prices/request fields interact. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a highly complex 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?

States a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('supplied RWA/tokenized-stock evidence against an explicit policy'). It is clearly a diagnostic rather than an execution tool, so it separates conceptually from agent_begin_trade and pre_trade_safety_check, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

'Unsigned diagnostic only' and 'existing pre-trade and authorization checks remain required' imply the usage context (advisory gate, not the final authorizer), but no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative tool is given. The agent must infer the workflow position.

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