Report how a paid x402 call went

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

Annotations give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds substantive context beyond them: submissions are free and optional, on-chain verification of the payment (Base or Solana) happens within 24 hours, reports never change a grade by themselves, and only confirmation streaks or serious problems (no response, charged more/twice) trigger a re-test.

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 the purpose and packed with useful detail, but the parenthetical-laden sentences run long and pack several distinct rules into single clauses, which slightly hurts scanability. Little is wasted, though.

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 7-parameter nested write tool with no output schema and zero required params, the description covers eligibility, submission paths, and downstream consequences well. It does not say what the tool returns to the reporter (e.g., an acknowledgement or verification status), which is the one remaining gap with no output schema to cover it.

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 already 86%, but the description still adds meaning: it clarifies the receipt-vs-url+tx alternation and interprets the answer fields ('matchedListing (yes/partly/no)', 'charged (as_quoted/more/twice)') and the outcome shortcut. This maps the semantics rather than merely restating the schema.

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 ('report whether you got what you paid for' after paying an x402 endpoint) and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_endpoint and check_payment, which read rather than submit. An agent knows immediately this is the write-a-feedback path.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (after paying an x402 endpoint), the two accepted submission paths (PayCheck receipt vs url + tx) and who each is for, plus the constraint 'one report per payment' and that a seller's own wallet cannot self-report. It also explains what reports do and do not affect.

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