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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it states the operation is paid ($0.02 USDC via x402), that it re-resolves against price venues, and the real-world rationale (candle history revisions, venue reachability). This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, well-structured paragraph that leads with the core action and outputs, then provides usage rationale and cost. Every sentence adds value—there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

The tool has rich annotations, full schema parameter coverage, and no output schema, so the description's job is to explain why and when to use it. It names the three possible return values, explains the payment mechanism, and gives concrete environmental reasons for re-verification. This is complete for an agent deciding whether to use the tool.

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% and both parameters (decision_id, payment_header) have clear descriptions. The description reinforces that decision_id is an 'attested settlement' and mentions the payment cost, but it does not add substantive parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'Re-resolve' and names the resource ('an attested settlement'), the method ('against the price venues right now'), and the exact outputs (CONFIRMED, CHANGED, INDETERMINATE). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_price_event (fresh resolution) and decode_decision_id.

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 explicitly states when to call ('whenever someone hands you a decision_id you are about to rely on') and explains why attestation alone is insufficient because exchanges revise candle history and venues may become reachable. It also contrasts with 'resolving fresh' and notes the cost advantage, giving clear decision context.

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