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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and delivers real behavioral context: it is verified, includes a mandatory legal disclaimer, never returns token prices/valuations/investment advice, and is pay-per-use at 0.15 USDC on Base via x402. That is genuinely useful for cost and expectation setting. It does not disclose output format, latency, or failure/payment-refund behavior.

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?

It is short and front-loads the deliverable, but the structure is telegraphic: a fragment ('A company or real-estate asset, section by section') and a bracketed payment tag plus an intra-word alternation (x402: / Base) interrupt the flow. Every element is relevant, but the packing into pipe-delimited fragments costs readability.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover everything. It covers purpose, sections, disclaimer, and the paid-payment mechanism, but says nothing about the response shape (JSON vs prose report), length, or whether the dossier is returned in one shot — meaningful gaps for a report-generation tool with no output schema.

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% for the single 'input' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds a little value by enumerating the section names, which hints at what the 'campos' array accepts, but it does not clarify the free-text vs JSON mode choice, the 'tipo' values, or the 'jurisdiccion' default beyond what the schema already states.

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 concrete deliverable — a verified asset dossier / data room covering a company or real-estate asset section by section (identity, market, news, risks, regulatory) — which tells an agent what it will get back. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from close siblings such as due-diligence, rwa-report, and real-estate-report, which all appear in the sibling list.

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?

Use cases are implied by 'for due diligence / RWA tokenization prep,' which gives an agent a reasonable context signal. However there are no explicit when-not conditions, no prerequisites, and no routing to the overlapping siblings (due-diligence, rwa-report, real-estate-report), leaving selection between them to inference.

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