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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the tool is paid ($0.005 USDC on Base or Solana) and settlement/authorization can happen inline for x402-aware clients. This is important operational information that an agent would not know from the annotations or schema.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the price and core purpose front-loaded. Every phrase adds value: cost, target, purpose, and payment/settlement mechanism. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation facts.

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?

The description is sufficient to invoke the tool and understand its input, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the audit returns or what form the results take, which is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether to call it and how to interpret the result.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the `url` parameter. It does so by framing the tool as an audit of a public website, making it clear the URL should point to a publicly accessible site. It also adds that the audit focuses on agent discoverability and machine-readable signals, giving the parameter functional context beyond the plain 'uri' type.

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 states a specific action ('audit') applied to a public website, with a clear purpose: assessing agent discoverability and machine-readable integration signals. It is clear and notable that it is a paid operation, which helps separate it from free inspection tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but 'agent-readiness audit' is distinct enough from x402_ping and http_inspect.

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 implies the tool should be used when you need to audit a public website for agent-readiness signals, and it notes a usage condition: x402-aware MCP clients can authorize and settle inside the call. However, it does not state when not to use it or contrast it with related tools such as x402_ping or mcp_preflight, leaving alternative-selection largely to inference.

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