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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the nature (lint, quality score), the components (live probe and snapshot history), the cost ($0.01/call), and the specific criteria checked. It doesn't explicitly state read-only or side effects, but 'lint' implies analysis. It also mentions the return type (0-100 score). This is substantial disclosure.

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?

Two sentences that are information-dense and front-loaded: the purpose, the score, the checks, and the cost are all present with zero fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains what it does, what it returns (quality score), what it checks, and the cost. It lacks explicit error conditions or prerequisites, but those are minor for this type of read-only lint tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'resource' parameter, which already describes it as 'The listed resource URL to lint'. The description adds the x402 context and the fact it's a listing, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lints an x402 Bazaar listing and produces a 0-100 quality score, listing specific checks (valid 402, description, output schema, category, price floor, price churn, delisting). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from generic tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools.

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 clear usage context: 'before buying or before publishing your own'. This tells the agent when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it's not a 5.

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