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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses deterministic execution, transient non-retention of inputs, server-side vs browser delegation behavior, gpu-specific behavior, AP2 artifact export with execution_hash, and FV-status as an offline-verifiable snapshot. No contradiction with the readOnly/idempotent annotations is present.

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 overloaded and repetitive: 'OpenChainGraph compute node' appears twice, and it includes long URLs, a full FV-status hash, and a lengthy downstream feed list. Useful details are buried, and the core function is not front-loaded.

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?

Execution, privacy, provenance, downstream consumers, and verification are covered well, and the output schema reduces the need to describe return values. But the description omits the actual comparison semantics, selection criteria, and differentiation from similar compare tools, so an agent may still invoke it incorrectly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the compute parameter behavior but adds little semantic value for parent_hashes, parent_tool_ids, or policy_parameters beyond what the schema already states, and it defers policy_parameters field names to an external manifest.

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 title and tool name carry the 'compare protocols' meaning, but the description itself opens with a near-restatement of the title and 'OpenChainGraph compute node (routing_policy)' without stating what is compared or what the comparator returns. It lists downstream feeds, which hints at purpose, but an agent cannot tell exactly what computation or decision the tool performs.

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 operational guidance such as compute modes, gpu behavior, and 'use synthetic or anonymised inputs only,' and the output feeds imply a pipeline position. However, it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not distinguish itself from the near-sibling compare_agentic_payment_protocols.

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