Assess Counterparty and Job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is an aggregator of eight external checks, it emits a top-level 'proceed' bool plus a 'do_not_proceed_if' blocker list, and it gates the downstream fund-locking decision. It stops short of disclosing latency, cost, or auth requirements for the underlying checks.

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, then the aggregation scope, then the return contract and the gating rule. Four tight sentences with no filler; the enumeration of aggregated signals is long but each item is a distinct capability that justifies the tool's existence over its siblings.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still correctly summarizes the key return fields ('proceed' bool and 'do_not_proceed_if' list) plus the decision rule. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, nothing an agent needs to call this 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 description coverage is 100% and all four parameters (job_type, amount_xrp, worker_address, nft_issuer_query) are already well documented in the schema, including how each feeds the assessment. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 is correct when the schema carries the load.

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 ('single pre-flight check before locking funds in escrow') and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: trust score, sanctions, KYC, NFT issuer registry, domain status, release conditions, escrow cap, go/no-go rules. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling point-checks like check_wallet_kyc, check_wallet_sanctions, and get_wallet_trust_score.

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?

Gives explicit ordering guidance ('Run this before create_escrow_vault or hire_and_pay') and an explicit conditional action ('If proceed is False, do not lock funds'). The agent knows both when to call it and what to do with the result, with no inference required.

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