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

Annotations already declare idempotent, read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds two valuable facts annotations cannot convey: it is fail-closed (rejects rather than degrades when evidence is missing) and it carries a cost of 0.019 USDC, which matters for a paid/x402 call.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the fail-closed posture is front-loaded. It is telegraphic to the point of being jargon-dense, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists and the input schema is essentially opaque (a bare nested object), so the description would need to carry more weight. It covers behavior and price but omits what evidence is returned, what a failed/closed result looks like, and what the undocumented parameters must supply.

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 description coverage is 0% and 'asset' is a nested object with no documented fields, yet the description says nothing about what asset, source_urls, or declared_facts should contain. 'Independently fetched evidence' hints at the tool's posture, not at parameter shape, so the three undocumented parameters are never compensated for.

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 names a specific resource (RWA asset due diligence) and enumerates the exact coverage dimensions: issuer, contract, jurisdiction, custody, documentation. That is far more concrete than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as rwa_compliance, rwa_sanctions_screening_evidence, or rwa_transaction_assurance, so an agent cannot route between them from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named. 'Fail-closed' implies it is meant for gating decisions, but the agent is left to infer the trigger condition and the relationship to the other rwa_* tools.

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