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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-chain reach are covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely important behavioral fact beyond annotations: that the tool inspects Base finality/safe-head and that OCD does not execute. It does not cover authentication for the independent inspection service, rate limits, or what failure of finality looks like. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with inputs followed by the inspection target, then a short boundary statement. No filler; the only weakness is that packing three inspection targets into a dense clause slightly reduces scannability.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description gives no indication of what inspection results look like (per-check booleans, finality status, calldata match). For a verification tool with an opaque artifact parameter and no output schema, an agent has enough to attempt a call but not enough to interpret the result or anticipate failure modes.

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 0% and the description only hints at the two parameters' roles ('signed OCD swap preflight artifact and Base transaction hash') without explaining the artifact's type, encoding, or what makes it 'signed', nor the tx hash format. The required-only schema leaves 'artifact' opaque, and the description does not compensate for the 0% coverage gap.

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 (inspect) and resource (Uniswap V3 exactInputSingle calldata, ERC-20 transfers, Base safe-head finality) given two specific inputs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the preflight_swap sibling and from execution: 'OCD never executes the swap.' An agent can tell this is post-transaction independent observation rather than preflight construction.

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?

Implied usage is clear (observe after a swap preflight, given an artifact and tx hash), and the read-only inspection stance is stated, but the description names no alternative sibling or condition for choosing observe_swap over inspect_swap or get_receipt. No exclusions or prerequisite failure modes are given.

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