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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that a pass token is required — which goes beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about rate limits, failure modes, or result freshness.

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?

Two sentences with the auth prerequisite front-loaded, which is the right priority. The second sentence is a dense comma-separated list, but no sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The auth requirement and the shape of returned data are covered, leaving only usage/alternative selection unaddressed.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what is there. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 enumerates the data returned (endpoints served, live/dead counts, price range, flags, settlements, payers) rather than stating a clear verb+resource purpose. Combined with the title 'Seller reputation by payTo address' an agent can infer the intent, but the description itself never says it looks up a seller's reputation and never distinguishes it from siblings like settled_sellers or settled_find_endpoints.

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 only usage-adjacent statement is 'Pass required,' which is a prerequisite rather than when-to-use guidance. With 17 sibling tools, no condition or alternative is named to help the agent choose this over settled_sellers or settled_find_endpoints.

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