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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: the output is rendered as a Markdown code block and it does not write to disk. This goes beyond the basic purpose and gives the agent a clear picture of side-effects and return format, though it does not cover error cases or permission requirements.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second states the output and side-effect. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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?

The combination of the description and a very detailed input schema provides a solid understanding of the tool. The output format and non-persistence behavior are clearly specified. However, the description mentions a 'designated beneficiary' which is not represented as a parameter in the schema, creating a minor gap about how the beneficiary is configured. Otherwise, it is complete for a code generation tool.

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%, so all parameters are already described in detail (formats, enums, defaults). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, only referencing a 'predefined vesting schedule' without elaborating on the schedule option. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because 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?

Purpose is highly specific: 'Make a vesting smart contract that manages the gradual release of ERC-20 tokens to a designated beneficiary based on a predefined vesting schedule.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling contract generators (e.g., erc20, erc721) and includes the output format (Markdown source code) and side-effect (no disk write).

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 description implies when to use the tool (when a vesting contract is needed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Since sibling tools are all different contract types, the usage is clear by context but not explicitly stated, resulting in an implied rather than explicit guideline.

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