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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds valuable non-schema behavior: the $0.04/call x402 pricing, the prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, no free tier, and no API key required. For an agent that must handle payment negotiation, this is meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with verb+resource+protocol, and pricing mechanics are efficiently packed. It runs a bit long and includes one marketing sentence ('The order-reconciliation read merchants and agents need...') that is closer to filler than instruction, costing it a point.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no prose, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description fills the remaining gaps: protocol identity, filter semantics, default network-feed behavior, and x402 payment/auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description contributes real meaning the terse schema does not: payment= is the PaymentInfo hash, receiver= is a merchant wallet, and omitting all filters returns the network feed. This clarifies both parameter identity and the all-optional default behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('reconciles two-phase auth/capture payments') and names the underlying protocol (AuthCaptureEscrow) on Base. The enumerated states (in escrow, captured, voided, refunded, payer-RECLAIMABLE) and the 'first tooling for Base's Commerce Payments protocol' framing clearly separate it from generic payment or audit siblings.

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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it ('order-reconciliation read merchants and agents need before trusting onchain commerce') and explains the filtering options plus the omit-everything network-feed default. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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