Screen an SME sale against the house LBO structure and rules (PAID $2.50)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutating/paid nature is partly structured. The description usefully adds the concrete price and payment rail (2.50 USD x402 on base/usdc, eip155:8453), which an agent needs before spending, but says nothing about what the screening computes or returns.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the paid route is front-loaded after the purpose. It is efficient, though the first sentence merely restates the title verbatim.

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 10-parameter tool that runs an LBO model, the description omits the return shape, the insufficient_data behaviour, and the coverage_gaps concept that its own schema relies on. An output schema and rich parameter docs exist, but the description leaves the agent without a picture of the screening result or its failure modes.

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 explains each field's purpose, matching rules, and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline and does not flag which inputs are effectively required.

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: screening an SME sale against a house LBO structure and rules. An agent can tell this is a valuation/screening tool rather than a settlement or reputation tool, though the description never contrasts it with near-neighbours like v1_finance_precision or v1_verdict_*.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions; the only scoping hints ('house' is the sole supported structure, undisclosed EBITDA returns insufficient_data) live in the schema rather than the description. Nothing routes the agent between this tool and the many sibling verdict/screening tools.

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