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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating that the tool builds an unsigned, non-custodial transaction rather than submitting one. It also discloses the default 'claims everything currently claimable' behavior when ids is omitted. This is useful context that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 and well-structured: it front-loads the v4 constraint, then states the output, the default behavior, the non-custodial nature, and the v3 alternative in just a few short sentences. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the complexity of this tool, the description is complete: it covers scope, output type, custody model, default behavior when ids is omitted, and the relationship to get_user_rewards. The schema handles the parameter details, and the annotations cover safety, so no critical information 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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including the conditional chainId behavior and the ids opt-out. The description mostly restates the ids behavior without adding substantial new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 'v4 only' and states a specific action: 'Build an unsigned transaction to claim a wallet's V4 rewards.' It clearly identifies the resource and output type, and it distinguishes itself from a v3 claim by explicitly saying there is no v3 equivalent and naming get_user_rewards as the tool that returns the v3 transaction.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use this for v4 reward claims, while v3 claims require no second call because get_user_rewards already returns the transaction. It also clarifies the ids omission behavior, helping an agent decide between claiming everything vs. specific reward ids.

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