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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a bounded resolver using an ME account balance and API key, it does not reserve funds, and it is separate from public x402 Human Verify. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side-effect-free discovery 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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the primary purpose and scope, the second adds the bounded/auth context, and the third clarifies the separation from public x402 and the non-reserving behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool reads, its auth model, its bounded nature, and its key non-effect (no fund reservation). The only minor gap is that it does not describe what the returned contract data looks like, but with no output schema and a read-only discovery role, this is acceptable.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description compensates by explaining what the tool reads and what it does not do (does not reserve funds). A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the description clarifies the tool's role.

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 clearly states the tool reads a live shared /resolve contract and lists the specific aspects it covers: availability, input/output schemas, authentication, and economics. It distinguishes itself from public x402 Human Verify and mentions it is separate from other resolution tools. The verb 'Read' plus the resource 'live shared /resolve contract' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly says to use this tool 'before submitting an authenticated blocker', giving a clear when-to-use instruction. It also notes it is separate from public x402 Human Verify, providing a partial alternative/exclusion. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like me_resolve or me_resolve_blocker as alternatives, nor does it say when not to use those, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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