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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does an excellent job. It reveals the payment requirement ($0.50 USDC on Base with exact wallet address and tx hash parameter), latency (<300ms), output formats (JSON + TXT), and even alternative payment routes (Eth/Solana via .well-known/x402). No contradictions or hidden behaviors.

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?

Three well-structured sentences lead with the core purpose, then content details, then operational constraints (formats, latency, payment). Every sentence earns its place, and the verbose payment details are necessary due to exact addresses and chain specifications.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately describes the return contents and formats. It omits potential error states and the x_payment alternative is tersely noted, but for a paid summary tool, the provided information is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including payment details for payment_tx. The description only repeats the payment_tx instruction without adding new semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific deliverable: 'Cross-exercise biomechanical summary' with explicit use cases ('insurance_claim_validation or rehab_progress_tracking'). It enumerates contained data (asymmetry indices, ROM, fatigue markers, clinical synthesis), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rehab_profile or get_rehab_report.

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?

Clear context is provided by naming two target use cases, but it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for different scenarios. This is a minor gap versus the 5-level requirement for explicit when/when-not guidance.

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