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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the operation is paywalled, the exact price, accepted payment currencies, the endpoint, and the sorting behavior. It does not cover authentication or side effects, but the output is payment instructions and the operation appears read-only, so disclosure is strong.

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 dense sentence front-loads the critical paywall warning, then states limits, sorting, output, pricing, and the free alternative. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers input limits, output shape, cost, payment options, and the free alternative. A minor gap is that it never fully defines what an 'exit check' is, but the sorting categories and sibling context make the intent clear.

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 the ids parameter is already documented. The description adds useful context about the 25-item limit and the worst-first sorting, but does not need to explain the parameter further.

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 action: performing bulk exit checks on up to 25 Arc tokens or pool ids, sorted worst-first. It clearly identifies the resource and the output (x402 payment instructions), and distinguishes itself from the single-check sibling arc_exit_check.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this bulk tool versus the free single-check alternative: 'Single checks are free via arc_exit_check.' It also flags the paywall and cost upfront, giving clear decision guidance.

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