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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it decodes, checks various risk patterns, and returns a verdict with reasons. It also mentions pricing. This is comprehensive for a read-only safety tool.

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?

Two sentences plus pricing note, all relevant. The purpose is stated first ('Pre-sign safety verdict'), followed by details. No wasted words.

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 5-param tool with no output schema, the description explains the output format (verdict with reasons) and covers major checks. It could mention the return structure more explicitly, but it's sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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% with brief descriptions. The description adds value by listing the expected structure 'Send { chain, to, data, from?, value? }' and implying defaults (data defaults to 0x, chain defaults to base). This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Pre-sign safety verdict' that decodes a transaction and checks for sanctioned counterparties, drainer patterns, contract-vs-EOA, and revert risk, returning SAFE/CAUTION/DANGER. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like safety_approvals, safety_decode, and safety_simulate.

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 before signing ('The must-have guard every signing agent needs') and notes it's a paid tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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