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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: a mandatory 402 payment handshake, the constraint that the signature must be the buyer's own, and the consequence that payment alone does not grant standing and a failed assessment yields no Mark. Missing only edge details like retry limits or what a successful response contains.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the payment flow, with no filler. It is dense and information-bearing throughout, though the domain jargon ("Mark") adds an unexplained term.

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?

There is no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, so the description must compensate, and it does not: submission_raw and client_proof are unexplained, and it never says what a Standing Evaluation result looks like or how it relates to the contract/result siblings. The payment flow is covered but the core input contract is not.

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% for three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It partially covers payment_signature ("buyer's own pre-authorized payment signature") but says nothing about submission_raw, the sole required parameter, or client_proof, leaving the agent unable to know what to put in the most important field.

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 verb and resource ("Request a WHP Standing Evaluation"), so the basic action is identifiable. However, "WHP Standing Evaluation" is an opaque domain term and the description never differentiates this tool from its siblings whp_standing_contract and whp_standing_result, so an agent cannot tell which of the three to pick from this text alone.

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 does provide operational context: the first call returns HTTP 402 terms and the retry must carry the buyer's own pre-authorized payment signature. That is useful invocation guidance, but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against the two sibling tools, so selection remains implied rather than stated.

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