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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: the $0.02 USDC cost, fail-closed recommendation behavior, and the need for host authorization of displayed spend. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four short sentences deliver cost, usage timing, verification scope/behavior, and an authorization prerequisite with no filler or redundancy. The most decision-critical facts are front-loaded.

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 paid verification tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the operational essentials: cost, trigger conditions, fail-closed result, and host authorization. Parameter-level detail is left to a schema with 0% description coverage, so an agent may still need to infer goal and constraints semantics, but the behavioral context is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters, but it only loosely hints at them through terms like 'endpoint', 'MCP', 'x402', and 'contract evidence'. It does not explain what 'goal' should contain, how 'constraints' are applied, or what 'providerOrigins' means, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from names and schema enums alone.

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 verb ('Verify') and resource ('unresolved external capability'), and names the evidence classes checked (endpoint, MCP, x402, contract). It also positions itself relative to 'procure', which distinguishes it from generic siblings like 'resolve' by emphasizing live re-checking and a fail-closed recommendation.

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?

It gives explicit entry conditions: 'Use after procure returns no proven selection / eligible_with_unknowns, or immediately before trusting an unfamiliar external candidate when live evidence is required.' It also states a hard prerequisite: 'Call only when the host independently authorizes the displayed spend.' This is clear and actionable.

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