x402 Trust bulk scoring

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers two genuinely useful behaviors: unknown URLs return found:false, and the batch is billed regardless of misses. That billing-on-miss caveat is real cost information an agent needs. It stops short of confirming the operation is read-only or describing failure/rate-limit behavior.

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 tight sentences: the core action and scope lead, then edge-case/cost behavior follows. No filler, and the most surprising fact (billing on misses) is not buried.

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 batch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits the shape of the response (how per-endpoint scores are returned, ordering, partial failures). It covers behavior and cost but leaves the agent guessing what it gets back.

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 schema already documents both `resources` and `tier`. The description restates the auto-tier behavior ('cheapest fitting tier is picked automatically') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Score ... endpoints') with an explicit batch scope ('up to 500 endpoints in one call'), which inherently distinguishes it from the single-endpoint x402_trust_score sibling. An agent can tell immediately this is the batch-scoring 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?

The batch framing implies when to use it (many endpoints), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over x402_trust_score or x402_trust_preview, nor any stated prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than declared.

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