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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is paid ($0.002) and uses POST endpoint, which are important behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention error handling or rate limits.

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 concise, combining purpose, example, pricing, and endpoint in one sentence with clear bracketed extras. It front-loads the key action, but minor redundancy (e.g., 'send { domain }' could be integrated).

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?

Given the single required parameter and no output schema, the description explains input well but doesn't specify return format or error messages. The expected output (wallet address + expiry) is mentioned, but agent might need more detail on structure.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a basic description. The tool adds an example ('e.g. foundation.ton') which provides practical guidance beyond the schema, slightly above baseline 3.

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 resolves .ton DNS names to wallet address and expiry, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like crypto_ens which handles Ethereum ENS.

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 through an example (foundation.ton) and includes pricing info, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like crypto_ens or 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.