Investigate a payment and its workflow, with every statement labelled by how well it is supported (PAID $0.25)

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

Adds context annotations do not carry: this is a paid call (0.25 USD), invoked remotely via POST /v1/agent/forensics with x402/base/USDC on eip155:8453. That pricing and payment-rail detail is genuinely useful. But for a tool annotated readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, it never explains what state changes or external calls occur, nor whether the charge is incurred before or after the call fails.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the first sentence is a verbatim restatement of the title, and the paid bracket '(PAID $0.25)' is duplicated by the explicit route line below. Two of the three sentences spend words on repeated pricing instead of on the six undocumented inputs.

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?

Placeholder

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 0% across six parameters, and the description supplies no meaning for 'evidence', 'expected', 'requestId', 'payment_ref', 'workflow_id', or 'generated_at'. The phrase 'a payment and its workflow' weakly implies payment_ref/workflow_id, but 'expected' and 'evidence' shapes remain entirely opaque.

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 ('Investigate a payment and its workflow') plus a distinctive output trait ('every statement labelled by how well it is supported'). However, it does not differentiate against near-neighbours such as v1_audit_evidence_package, v1_evidence_query, or v1_finance_attested_evidence, which an agent could plausibly pick instead.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no routing to any of the many sibling evidence/audit tools. The agent is left to guess whether this supersedes or complements v1_evidence_query or v1_audit_evidence_package.

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