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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the safety profile is covered. The description adds relevant behavioral context by stating the result is machine-verifiable, bounded by explicit authority, and contains the payment contract and prerequisites. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is a single sentence with a colon-separated summary that front-loads the core action and then lists the included components. It is compact and efficient, though the phrase 'Machine-verifiable standing under explicit authority and bounds' is somewhat abstract and jargon-heavy.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description names the key return elements: exact profile, schema, authority prerequisites, and owner-authorized payment contract. For a zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool this is sufficient to set expectations, even though the exact output format is not detailed.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information for the description to supply. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific details.

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 names a specific action (Discover) and resource (WHP Standing), and enumerates bundled content: exact profile, schema, authority prerequisites, and owner-authorized payment contract. It is clear about what the tool provides, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools, preventing a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as whp_standing_evaluation or whp_standing_result. The content list implies a contract-discovery role, but no when-to-use, exclusion, or alternative-selection information is provided.

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