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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavioral context: it is FREE, the paid endpoint costs bash.05 USDC via x402 on Base L2, and returns HTTP 402 without X-Payment. It also enumerates verdict semantics (APPROVE <2%, REDUCE 2-5%, REJECT >5%). It stops short of describing what 'terms' contain or any rate limits.

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?

Dense and information-rich with no filler, but poorly front-loaded: the actual tool purpose ('returns service info and terms') sits in the middle while the paid endpoint mechanics dominate. Moving the tool's own function first would improve it.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description supplies the service overview, verdict thresholds, and payment model. It is nearly complete for an info tool, lacking only explicit guidance on when to use it relative to the paid endpoint.

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 takes zero parameters, so nothing is required, but the description lists inputs (pool, borrow_asset, borrow_amount, leverage) that belong to the paid validation endpoint, not to diav_info. Followed from the preceding sentence, the context implies they are the paid endpoint's inputs, but an agent could misread them as accepted here.

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 states the tool 'returns service info and terms,' which is a specific verb+resource, but that core purpose is buried mid-paragraph after detailed text about a separate paid validation endpoint. A reader must disentangle the info tool from the validator service it advertises, and there is no differentiation from the many other *_info siblings.

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 implies a free-info-then-paid-validation flow by giving the paid endpoint URL and pricing, but never explicitly says when to call this tool versus the validate endpoint. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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