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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) it discloses the payment lifecycle: work runs before settlement so failed calls are never charged, success returns the result plus a receipt with the tx hash in _meta["x402/payment-response"], and the failure mode without a payload. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose and price/payment model are front-loaded, followed by the mechanics and the fallback. The sentences are long and dense but each carries distinct operational information; a little tightening of the chain/currency enumeration would make it tighter.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers what a successful call returns (result plus receipt and where the tx hash lives) and what a failed call returns. For a paid, open-world tool with nested params, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 two properties are already documented, which sets a baseline of 3. The description goes further by explaining the out-of-schema payment channel (params._meta["x402/payment"]) and the currency/chain options, which the input schema does not mention at all.

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 verb and resource ('Runs one Wafermap resource') and adds the distinguishing mechanism ('pays its exact USD price over x402'). That mechanism cleanly separates it from the sibling tools (discover/resources/resource_schema/tokens), which are read-only lookups.

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?

It states the precondition for a successful call (a signed x402 v2 PaymentPayload) and what happens when it's absent (isError plus payment requirements to sign), and it names an alternative path for agents without a wallet (the Wafermap CLI). It doesn't explicitly route the agent to wafermap_resources / wafermap_resource_schema for obtaining the resource id and input shape, though the schema descriptions cover that.

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