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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a tool that only assembles a manifest rather than executing anything, and the description reinforces this by framing it as building a request, not performing the transfer. The Stokenet-only network constraint is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about downstream sign/submit steps.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, the network constraint, and the funding use case, all front-loaded with zero filler.

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 read-only manifest builder with a fully documented 2-param schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, network scope, and usage. It could mention what the returned manifest is meant to be used with (e.g., signing/submission), but nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented with formats (account_tdx_2_…, en/es), so the schema carries the load. The description adds only the implicit notion of an account to fund, which the schema already conveys.

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 and resource ('Builds the manifest that requests free test XRD from the Stokenet faucet and deposits it into an account'), which is unmistakably distinct from siblings like build_validator_manifest or build_wallet_request. The Stokenet-only scope further sharpens its identity.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance ('Use it to fund a test account before other transactions') and a hard constraint (Stokenet only — mainnet has no faucet). It doesn't name a specific alternative tool for mainnet users, but the exclusion is well articulated.

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