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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it decodes unpaid 402 challenges, identifies settlement currencies and the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, never signs or pays, and does not consume the free intelligence call. This goes well beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent clause adds necessary detail about payment requirements, settlement assets, and safety behavior. There is no filler, and the description is information-dense without being bloated.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent will receive, and it does: each recipe's path, price, token asset, issuer name/version, payTo, and a copy-paste curl, plus settlement context. Given zero parameters and rich annotations, nothing essential 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?

The tool accepts zero parameters and the schema fully captures that with an empty properties object and additionalProperties false. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return Otto X's live X Layer recipe menu.' It enumerates the returned fields (path, price, payment requirement, token asset, issuer, payTo, curl), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like otto_catalog or otto_prepare_*.

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 context: the tool is always free, read-only, never signs or pays, and does not consume the free intelligence call, so an agent knows when it is safe to invoke. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the unique recipe-menu scope provides sufficient guidance.

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