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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description earns credit for adding domain semantics: the BUY/CAUTION/AVOID verdict taxonomy, the meaning of INTERIM ('single verified result, pending deep review'), and the zero-cost claim. It doesn't say what happens when a service has no review yet, which is the main unaddressed 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?

One sentence with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the enumerated contents and a one-word cost note. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

With an output schema, annotations, and a fully documented parameter, the only real gap is the not-found/no-review-yet case and how this differs from request_review. The INTERIM definition is the kind of context an agent genuinely needs and would otherwise lack.

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 the single 'service' parameter is already documented as an exact name from search_services, so the description adds nothing parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full receipts-verified review of one agent-economy service') and enumerates the payload: verdict, scores, latency/error rate, on-chain receipts. It doesn't name a sibling, but 'of one service' implicitly contrasts with the listing tool search_services.

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: you call this to inspect a specific service's verdict before acting. 'Free' signals cost, but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. search_services to discover names, request_review to create a review).

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