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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: no funds move here, consent is a legal/compliance gate, and payment settlement happens elsewhere. It does not describe the created order's shape or whether retries create duplicate orders, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, safety clarification, consent gate, and next step. The consent sentence partially duplicates the schema description, which is justified by the legal stakes but is slight redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what the created order returns (payment address, amount, expiry), and it does not. Workflow and constraints are otherwise complete for this two-parameter tool.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the consent condition with the same meaning as the schema's property description rather than adding new semantics such as format, sourcing, or constraints.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("Create a one-time full-report order") scoped to "an existing scan," plus an explicit negative clarification ("This does not transfer funds") and a named follow-up sibling (verify_full_report_payment). An agent can distinguish this from the verification step without inspecting either schema.

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?

States the precondition (existing scan, scan_id from scan_tls), the payer's obligation (send USDT on Polygon), the required consent gate, and the exact next tool to call with the transaction hash. Both when-to-use and the downstream alternative are explicit.

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