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

With no annotations, the description provides crucial behavioral context: it returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk. This explicitly states the tool's side-effect-free nature, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It doesn't mention input validation or edge cases, but for a code generator this is sufficient.

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, no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, and the second clarifies the output format and side effects. Excellent conciseness.

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 code generation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it does, the output format, and that it doesn't write to disk. The schema covers parameter details, so the description is complete enough without explaining every field.

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?

All 5 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the schema. The mention of quorum and signers provides some additional context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Make') and resource ('multi-signature smart contract'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling contract generators. It also adds key details like quorum and signers, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 context is clear (generating a multisig contract), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like cairo-governor or cairo-custom. It implies usage but lacks when-not or alternative recommendations.

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