assess_counterparty_deep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose an important behavioral trait: it costs $0.02 and is 'paid automatically in USDC.' It also explains that it performs a deeper scan of on-chain settlement history. It does not describe the return format or other side effects, but the cost and payment behavior are meaningful disclosures.

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 description is three short sentences with no filler. The key differentiator and usage condition are front-loaded, and the cost note is efficiently placed at the end.

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?

The description handles tool selection well, but it is incomplete for actual invocation: there is no output schema, no return-value description, and no parameter semantics. Given the nested parameters and financial context, an agent would still be guessing about how to configure policy or interpret the assessment result.

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?

The description provides zero parameter-level guidance, and schema description coverage is 0%. The agent receives no help understanding how to structure target, policy, or payment_context beyond raw schema property names. This is a significant gap for a tool with three nested objects.

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?

The description opens with 'Like assess_counterparty but scans more on-chain settlement history for a higher-confidence read,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and the key differentiator from its sibling. The purpose is specific and immediately distinguishable from assess_counterparty.

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 explicitly states 'Use for larger or higher-stakes payments,' giving a clear condition for choosing this tool. It names the alternative assess_counterparty by comparison, though it does not explicitly say when not to use it.

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