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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add behavior beyond that. It does add meaningful context: the tool's output is a classification plus a recommended next tool, which is the key behavioral trait for a router. It does not describe output shape or ambiguity handling, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the first explains what it resolves and returns, the second front-loads the usage trigger. Nothing is redundant with the title.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does say the tool determines the type and which tool to call next. It could be slightly more explicit about what the response looks like or what happens on ambiguous input, but it is adequate for a one-parameter router.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's enumeration of accepted string kinds mirrors the schema rather than adding syntax, length limits, or format guidance beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb (classify/resolve) and resource (a string against Dogecoin types: block height, block hash, transaction id, address) plus the follow-on action of naming the next tool. It is clearly distinguishable from the get_* siblings, which fetch a specific entity rather than routing.

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?

"Use it when unsure" gives an explicit trigger condition, and the classifier framing implies that when you already know the type you should call get_block/get_transaction/get_address directly. The inverse condition is implied rather than spelled out, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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