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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the important behavior that lookups may require x402 payment when the profile owner charges, which is not expressed in the annotations. This is meaningful extra transparency.

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 concise, information-dense sentences. The core action is front-loaded, the accepted recipients are summarized, and the payment caveat is placed logically. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 indicates the returned information: platforms, profile, scores, and wallet addresses. For a read-only lookup with one parameter, this is mostly complete; it doesn't cover payment failure behavior, but that is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the recipient parameter is already well documented. The description mainly reiterates acceptable recipient forms and explains the lookup purpose, but it doesn't add deeper semantics about how to specify IDs versus other identifier fields.

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 that the tool lists the platforms a recipient has exposed on Connect, and specifies the enriched output (profile, scores, wallet addresses). It is specific about the verb and resource, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling connect_lookup, which is a closely named alternative.

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 gives useful context about acceptable recipient types and the potential x402 payment requirement, but it doesn't say when to choose this tool over connect_lookup or other siblings. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the choice between similarly named lookup tools ambiguous.

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