facilitator_policy_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the fee model (verify/cost/simulate free, settle no fee, disbursements 1%), that refusal rules are fail-closed with codes, and that settles are idempotent with free previews. It stops short of stating whether the tool itself performs any network call or what the returned document looks like, but the substantive policy behavior is unusually well surfaced.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its contents, and every clause carries a distinct fact (tokens, fees, refusals, failure handling). The tail of three URLs plus the 402-naming note is slightly link-dump-ish and the comma-heavy list format is harder to scan than bullets would be, but there is no 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?

A zero-parameter, annotation-free, no-output-schema reference tool, and the description covers the content categories an agent needs before deciding to call it, including canonical manifest URLs. Only the shape of the returned document is left unstated, which is a minor gap given the linked manifest.

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?

Zero parameters and a closed empty object schema, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless fetch by pointing at URLs rather than arguments.

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?

Names a specific resource ('settlement policy of the AgentPay x402 facilitator') and enumerates its contents: accepted tokens, fees, refusal codes, failure handling. An agent can tell this is a reference/documentation tool rather than a live status or action tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbours like settlement_rail_info, pay_to_call_info, or check_facilitator_liveness.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Every 402 payment response from gated endpoints names the policy URL' suggests consulting this after a payment refusal, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative for live status or fee simulation. The agent must infer the trigger condition.

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