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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait that it only constructs the request and does not execute it or move payment. However, it omits auth/x402 payment prerequisites, rate limits, and error behavior — significant gaps that annotations would otherwise have covered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the purpose, signal types, and delivery mechanism; the negative clause lands at the end where it is most useful. No filler, though it is dense enough that a second short sentence on prerequisites would not hurt.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does describe the return value ('the exact HTTP request') and the non-execution contract. It is largely self-sufficient, missing only x402/payment prerequisite details.

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% and the single 'did' parameter has no title or description beyond its name. The description adds only the hint that the DID identifies the counterparty being risk-checked, which is a marginal but real clarification over the bare 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('Returns the exact HTTP request ... for a pre-trade tclk counterparty risk signal on a DID') and even enumerates the signal types (self-accepts, reciprocal wash-trading, hash-lock reuse). It is clearly distinct from generic siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with tclk_audit_request, which is the nearest neighbor.

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 establishes clear usage context ('pre-trade ... risk signal') and draws a boundary with the explicit 'this tool does NOT run it or move any payment itself'. No alternative tool is named for the step that does execute the request, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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