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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the two most decision-relevant facts: cost ($0.01/call in USDC on Base, eip155:8453) and the x402 payment mechanism in params._meta. That is real value beyond structured fields. It does not describe what happens if payment is absent, whether the call is read-only, rate limits, or error behavior, so it remains incomplete.

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, front-loaded with purpose before the operational payment detail. Dense but not padded. The raw HTTP endpoint at the end is arguably packaging detail an MCP caller does not need, which keeps it from a 5.

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-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the enumeration of report sections plus cost and payment scheme covers a fair amount. However, the complete silence on what addr and chain accept, plus no default chain, leaves a genuine gap an agent must resolve by trial or by opening the schema and finding nothing there either.

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?

Two parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for either: no address format, no default chain, no statement of whether chain is optional or inferred. The only parameter-like detail mentioned, params._meta["x402/payment"], is not in the input schema at all, so it aids the payment flow but not the documented parameters.

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+resource ('Token due-diligence report') and enumerates the report's contents: market, holders/security flags, on-chain reads, score. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings such as token_dd__report or token_dd__verify, so an agent cannot confidently pick it over those on the strength of this 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?

Only an implied usage ('due-diligence report' on a token). There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of how this differs from token_dd__report, token_dd__batch, or token_dd__verify. An agent facing the sibling list is left to guess.

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