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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it returns an unsigned transaction plus a short-lived voucher, never signs or holds keys, requires user approval, and warns the claim is one per wallet forever and irreversible once mined. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone communicate.

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 organized into focused paragraphs and every sentence adds meaningful information. It front-loads the core purpose before covering return values, edge cases, and security caveats without fluff.

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 tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the return values, including the unsigned transaction shape, and covering the critical already-claimed edge case. An agent has enough information to invoke this correctly and interpret its result.

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 fully covers the only parameter with a pattern and description. The description adds broader context—eligibility criteria and claim behavior—but does not need to elaborate on the address parameter itself, so the baseline of 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 clearly states it checks whether a wallet can claim BASE167, naming the specific resource and operation. It also differentiates from the claim/enroll siblings by emphasizing that the token cannot be bought and is only claimed.

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?

It provides clear eligibility context (167+ Base mainnet transactions) and explains when a refusal should not be retried. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose and conditions are unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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