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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the guide's concrete content—signal_hash, nullifier, merkle_root, EAS GraphQL querying, RLP encoding, secp256k1 recovery, and Merkle proof construction—which tells the agent what to expect. Side effects and return format are not discussed, but this is a read-oriented guide retrieval with sufficiently disclosed behavior.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second sentence adds a usage directive plus a detailed list of covered topics. The list is long but each item helps the agent assess whether the guide matches its task.

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?

With one enum-constrained parameter and no output schema, the description tells the agent what the guide contains and when to read it. It does not explicitly describe the return shape, but for a guide-fetching tool this is a minor omission and the overall definition is adequate for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, circuit, has 100% schema description coverage with 'Circuit alias to get the guide for' and an enum of valid values. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so the schema already carries the load; baseline 3 applies.

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 'Get a comprehensive step-by-step guide for preparing all inputs required for a specific circuit,' naming a clear action and resource. It is easily distinguished from siblings get_supported_circuits and prove, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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 instruction 'Read this BEFORE attempting proof generation' explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool relative to prove. It does not mention get_supported_circuits or negative cases, but the sequencing guidance is clear enough.

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