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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses the payment requirement ($0.02 USDC via x402), the first-call behavior for payment_header (omit to receive payment requirements), and the fact that results can differ from the original attestation due to venue or candle history changes. This adds real behavioral context the annotations do not cover.

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?

Four dense sentences: first states the action and statuses, second gives the exact call scenario, third explains why a fresh check is needed, and fourth covers cost and trade-off. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place and key information is 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?

Despite no output schema, the description names all three possible outcomes, explains the payment flow, and gives the rationale for using this tool. It fully covers the tool's contract for a two-parameter, single-output operation, and the sibling-tool context reinforces its niche.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (decision_id and payment_header) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage context by explaining decision_id is an attestation identifier and that payment_header should be omitted on the first call to trigger payment requirements, enriching the schema's basic 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 a precise verb and object: 'Re-resolve an attested settlement against the price venues right now and report whether it still holds' and names the three possible outputs (CONFIRMED, CHANGED, INDETERMINATE). It clearly distinguishes this from the act of creating a fresh attestation by emphasizing it verifies someone else's answer, which sets it apart from sibling tools like attest_price_event and resolve_price_event.

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?

It provides an explicit trigger: 'Call this whenever someone hands you a decision_id you are about to rely on.' It also explains why this is needed (attestations age, exchanges revise candle history, venues may become reachable) and contrasts with the more expensive alternative of buying a fresh resolution, giving clear selection guidance.

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