assess_services

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: charges $0.25 one-time, is a pure pass-through, never holds keys/signs/settles, returns a settlement receipt, probe fees are non-refundable, probe_report never contains verbatim third-party responses, and no charge if the fresh run cannot be produced. This is far beyond typical side-effect disclosure and covers both payment and probe behavior comprehensively.

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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence carries necessary operational detail for a complex two-phase payment flow. It is longer than the average tool description, but the complexity justifies the length. Slight reduction could be achieved with bullet points, but the content is efficient and free of filler.

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 complex tool with 4 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers the full invocation lifecycle, pricing, failure semantics, probe behavior, and safety guarantees. It leaves nothing critical undefined given the tool's complexity, and no output schema is needed because the description already indicates what the report contains (assessment report and optional probe_report).

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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the description enriches parameter semantics significantly. It explains the payment_signature_b64 lifecycle (omit to get challenge, include to get report) and details the probe object's pricing, behavior when probing is armed/not armed, and safety guarantee about not exposing verbatim bodies. This adds meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 'Run a fresh, PAID AI assessment comparing a shortlist of already-listed x402 services for a stated need,' immediately stating the verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_service (free read of existing assessment) and search/find tools.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with 'reading an already-computed assessment stays free via get_service' and explains the two-step payment flow: first call without payment_signature_b64 to receive the challenge, then call again with the same parameters plus signature. It also details when the optional probe applies and when it is ignored.

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