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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond this: 'No auth needed' and 'changes nothing and can be repeated safely.' This goes beyond the structured hint, giving the agent actionable safety and repeatability information.

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?

Three sentences deliver all essential information with no filler: what it is, when to use it, and behavioral guarantees. The content is front-loaded with the canonical purpose before usage details.

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 reference tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent the exact information it will need to verify claims, confirms no auth requirement, and explicitly states safety. Nothing important is missing.

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 schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly does not waste space on parameter details.

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 clearly identifies the tool as the canonical source of truth for the treasury address, sanctioned money-in paths, and the official token contract. It uses a specific verb ('Check ... against this') and distinguishes its role as the authoritative reference versus any 'official X' claim among siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to verify any '1F916 official X' claim, including token claims. It provides clear context for its role as a verification source, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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