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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does exceptionally well: it discloses that L2 values exclude L1 data availability fees, explains that costs built from this are lower bounds, and warns against misleading cross-chain comparisons. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a necessary caveat about L2 pricing semantics. The caveat is somewhat long but earns its place because it materially changes how the result should be interpreted. No wasted filler, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns, its source, and its most important interpretive limitation. It does not enumerate supported chains or specify return units/format, but with zero parameters and a simple read-like use case, these are minor gaps. The caveat makes the description sufficiently complete for correct use.

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 tool has no parameters and the schema is complete, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none is needed; the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Current gas price on each supported chain') and names the data source ('from RPC'). It clearly distinguishes this as a live gas-price lookup tool and is not confused with the sibling tools like attribution or execution_benchmarks.

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 clearly signals it is for current gas prices and gives concrete guidance on how to interpret the value for L2s, warning that it is a lower-bound cost estimate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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