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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful non-obvious traits: a deterministic output, an evidence-bounded computation, a cryptographic signature, and a 0.005 USDC cost. These go beyond the structured hints, though 'signed' is not elaborated.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, and every phrase adds signal—scope, non-goal, cost, determinism, boundedness, and signing. The semicolon-separated fragments are slightly awkward but not 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, non-goal, cost, determinism, and signing. The main remaining gap is the unconstrained input object: minProperties 1 with additionalProperties true leaves agents guessing what at least one property should be.

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?

There are no declared parameters and the schema only permits a free-form object with at least one property, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description's 'failure evidence' phrase hints at the intended payload, though it does not spell out accepted keys.

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 specific verb ('Assemble'), a concrete object ('failure evidence'), and an explicit non-goal ('without executing refunds'), so the tool's role is immediately distinguishable from sibling payment/execution tools. It also names the expected output ('recommend resolution').

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 the use case—bundling evidence and recommending a resolution after a failure—and explicitly excludes refund execution, but it names no sibling tools or conditions that should route an agent here instead of related tools like payment_diagnose or transaction_recovery. It leaves the when-to-use decision largely to inference.

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