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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Compute' but does not clarify if this is a read-only calculation or if it triggers side effects like creating a record. The description implies a pure computation but lacks explicit confirmation of safety or required auth.

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 single, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately front-loaded, immediately stating the action and result.

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 the lack of schema descriptions, missing annotations, and a complex domain (margin + card cost), the description is too brief. It does not define what 'the take' refers to, what payee_tier values are, or the unit of amount_minor. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain the parameters 'amount_minor' or 'payee_tier'. There is no hint about expected values, units, or formatting, leaving the agent without necessary context to populate these fields correctly.

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 computes a 'unified Viridis protocol margin (the take) + pass-through card cost' for a settlement. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like viridis_certify or viridis_verify_mark, which focus on certification and verification.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a settlement must exist first, or when to prefer compute_toll over other tools. No explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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