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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses only payment context (0.2 USDC on Base, pay-per-use). It says nothing about side effects, permissions, reversibility, rate limits, or what building the infrastructure actually does.

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 short, but it front-loads 'Auto-created from research', which is not useful for an agent trying to decide whether to call it. The payment detail is concrete, but the structure prioritizes provenance over purpose.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not explain the input meaning, expected output, or behavioral effects. Only the payment mechanism is concrete, leaving an agent unable to confidently invoke it.

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 100%, so the single input parameter is documented in the schema as 'entrada'. The description adds no meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate for a high-coverage 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 largely restates the tool name ('identity-trust-infrastructure' -> 'Builds a trust infrastructure'), adding only domain-level phrasing about financial markets and autonomous AI agents. It does not state a concrete operation, resource, or result, so an agent cannot distinguish it from many sibling trust/identity tools.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are provided. The phrase 'Auto-created from research' is provenance metadata, not usage guidance.

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