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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pay-per-call pricing, finality of payments, HTTP 402 behavior until payment is presented, direct provider payment, and that only high-signal rule families are checked. This is substantial and non-redundant 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?

The description is structured and front-loaded with payment terms, then the functional listing. There is minor redundancy around payment finality ('payments are final', 'cannot be reversed', 'no refunds'), but every section contributes necessary information for using a paid tool.

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 paid tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides everything needed: price, payment behavior, input format, expected verdict values, counts, top findings with file:line, and routing to sol-audit. Nothing essential for correct selection or invocation is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents repo as GitHub owner/name and ref as the git ref defaulting to master. The description's POST {repo, ref?} notation adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 listing clearly identifies this as a Solana/Anchor security scan returning a go/no-go verdict for one contract, with explicit rule families and output values. It is also distinguishable from the sibling sol-audit by contrasting 'quick scan' with 'full audit'.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: run it before interacting with a contract or buying the full audit, and route to sol-audit when the verdict is NEEDS_REVIEW or DO_NOT_INTERACT. It also tells the agent to skip this tool and go straight to sol-audit when comprehensive findings are already required.

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