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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'Data only; not a recommendation or executable quote,' discloses the cost model ($0.001 USDC via x402) and that the first cached result is free, and describes the live nature of the registry. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 concise, about three sentences, and front-loads the core purpose and data fields. It avoids redundancy and every sentence adds value: purpose/data list, optional thesis behavior, and cost/disclaimer. No filler or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with only two optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and read-only/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It specifies the exact data returned, the optional thesis behavior, cost, and the data-only nature. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to understand its output expectations.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, with clear definitions for 'thesis' and 'x_payment'. The description adds extra semantic value: it explains that an optional thesis yields a relevance-ranked shortlist with a match reason per row, and it provides context on the payment mechanism ('calls cost $0.001 USDC through x402'). These details enrich the parameter meaning beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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 a clear verb ('Scan'), a specific resource (live registry of US equities and ETFs tokenized on Robinhood Chain), and enumerates the exact data returned (symbol, token address, decimals, prices, tradability). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on tokenized equities and clarifying it is data-only, not a recommendation or executable quote. This fully differentiates it from tools like otto_equity_intel.

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 implies when to use it (to scan the tokenized equities registry) and mentions the optional thesis for a relevance-ranked shortlist, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are named or contrasted. The 'Data only' disclaimer sets expectations but does not guide selection among the many otto_* tools.

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