IMD check

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that it is experimental, free (no payment), and retried up to 3 times due to a noisy evaluator – genuine behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it omits auth requirements, what the verdict contains, and failure modes.

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?

The experimental warning is front-loaded, which is good, but 'Experimental: Experimental,' is redundant and the sentences mix caveats, endpoint info, and retry policy without clear ordering. Adequate but not tight.

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 nested-object tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what the verdict looks like and how to interpret it; it only names the concept. It covers the endpoint, cost, and retry behavior, leaving the return value and error handling unaddressed.

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 both parameters (action, input) are already documented in the schema, including the hint to source 'action' from imd_capabilities. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond restating 'action+input', so 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 function – returns a free evaluator verdict for an action+input via POST /requests/check – which is distinguishable from sibling tools like imd_quote and imd_pay. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the verb+resource is clear.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus imd_quote/imd_pay/imd_capabilities, nor any prerequisite or workflow positioning. 'Read the code, start with small amounts' is cautionary advice, not usage guidance for an agent selecting a tool.

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