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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the price of $0.001 USDC per successful call via x402 on Solana and the equivalent HTTPS endpoint. It also clarifies the run length and indexing convention.

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 compact and front-loads the core definition before adding range, pricing, and endpoint information. Each sentence contributes to understanding or invocation, with only minor fragmentation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should fully explain the return value. It conceptually describes the run and its length and gives small indexing examples, but does not specify the exact output shape or fields an agent should expect.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description must carry the burden. It does explain that n is the index whose Thue-Morse bit determines the containing run, but it mostly repeats the explicit schema bounds 0 to 1000000 and does not provide additional format or interpretability detail for n.

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 identifies the resource as the Thue-Morse run containing n and explains the underlying bit definition. It is specific enough for an agent to distinguish it from generic Thue-Morse sequence tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as thue_morse or thue_prefix.

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 states the valid range of n and the conceptual use case, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like thue_morse, thue_prefix, or thue_weight. The distinction from other Thue-Morse tools is left for the agent to infer.

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