Gateway compliance decision for a payment (paid, x402 $0.002 or 1 credit)

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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description goes far beyond them, disclosing the HTTP 402 handshake, that real USDC on Base mainnet moves, the required OCEANALT_PAYER_KEY, the $0.002 cost, and the alternative OCEANALT_CREDIT_TOKEN path with its credit-pack economics. It even advises confirming live price/network and using a low-balance wallet.

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 usage are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by the payment mechanics. It is long, but the length is justified by the real-money payment flow; a couple of clauses about credits and network confirmation could be tightened.

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 carries the return contract and does sketch it ('DECISION — allow | review | decline — plus advice and verifiable evidence'). Payment/auth prerequisites are fully covered; the shape of the advice/evidence payload and failure modes remain unstated, which is the only material gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents to, network, purpose, and amountUsdc, including address formats, enum chains, and the 'optional, ignored for Tron' note. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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 ('Run OceanAlt's full compliance gateway on a proposed payment') and names the concrete outcome ('allow | review | decline plus advice and verifiable evidence'). The 'not just raw data' framing plus the mention of combining AML screening with RAP gate checks separates it from raw-screening siblings like screen_address.

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?

'Use this when an agent needs a go/no-go call before releasing funds' gives a clear triggering condition. It implies the raw-data alternative exists but does not explicitly name which sibling to use when a decision is not needed, nor does it state exclusions.

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