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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose genuinely useful traits: deterministic 'reproducible, no LLM calls' output and explicit cost ($0.25, +$0.10 for counterparty). It does not mention latency, rate limits, or auth requirements, but the cost and determinism disclosures are substantive behavioral context rarely found elsewhere.

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 dense sentences with the price and core deliverable front-loaded, followed by the counterparty upgrade and chain support. Little waste, though the parenthetical stack is somewhat compressed and reads like marketing copy.

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 5-parameter tool with 0 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify which parameters are needed for which chain (e.g., currency for XRPL, address vs token alias). It covers what is produced and the cost tiers but leaves the required-parameter combinations ambiguous.

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 coverage is 60%, in the middle band. The description hints at chain support ('EVM or XRPL') and repeats the counterparty trust-screen semantics already present in the schema description, but it does not clarify the distinction between token alias, address, and currency, nor the base/ethereum/xrp enum choices. Marginal value beyond the 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 states a specific resource ('composed Token Due-Diligence Memo') and enumerates its components: verdict, supply/flow forensics, settle-safe screen, and narrative risk assessment. These components map cleanly onto the sibling tools (token_verdict, forensics_info, settle_safe), so an agent can infer this is the aggregate view. It stops short of explicitly naming the siblings it consolidates, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the composite nature suggests 'call this to get everything at once' versus the individual sibling tools, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given. The cost tiers ($0.25 vs $0.35 with counterparty) inform selection economics but are pricing, not guidance. No alternatives are named.

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