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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: 'Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block' and 'Does not write to disk.' This explains the output format and side-effect absence, which is critical for a generator. However, it does not mention validation, error handling, or whether parameters have constraints beyond the schema, so some transparency is still missing.

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 extremely concise, two sentences long, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence serves a distinct function: the first states what the tool creates, and the second explains the output format and side-effect. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: it generates a contract, returns source code, and does not write to disk. It does not explain the meaning of specific parameter combinations or error conditions, but the rich schema descriptions compensate. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and primary behavior.

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%, with every parameter having a description in the input schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions the fungible token standard, which is already implied. The description neither clarifies ambiguous parameters nor provides usage examples, so it adds marginal value over the schema.

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 states it 'Make a fungible token per the Fungible Token Standard, compatible with SEP-41', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming the token standard and noting it is 'similar to ERC-20'. The addition that it returns source code and does not write to disk further clarifies its role as a code generator.

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 usage through its focus on fungible tokens and SEP-41 compatibility, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like stellar-non-fungible or stellar-stablecoin. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided. The context is clear but guidance is only implied, not stated.

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