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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Find' and 'inspect' imply a read-only discovery operation, and 'FREE' suggests no cost, but the description does not mention return format, side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the contract is not found.

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 extremely concise: two purpose clauses and 'FREE.' It front-loads the primary action and adds only a brief useful qualifier. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool, the description adequately states what the agent will get: the gateway contract and where to inspect payment requirements. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe the shape or format of the returned data, which is a notable gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no ambiguity exists.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('x402 Gateway contract') and adds a second deliverable ('where to inspect fresh payment requirements'). It is not a tautology and conveys a distinct purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like x402_contract.

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 implies usage for discovering the gateway contract and payment inspection location, but it provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over sml_status or x402_contract, and no when-not-to-use conditions. The only extra hint is 'FREE,' which is not usage guidance.

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