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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool returns source code in a Markdown code block and that it 'does not write to disk,' providing clear side-effect information. This goes beyond a bare schema and addresses key behavioral aspects.

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 primary purpose, and the second covers output and side effects. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or irrelevant 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?

The description fully explains what the tool generates, the output format, and that it does not write to disk. Combined with the schema's 100% parameter coverage and the presence of all necessary context, no critical information is missing.

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 covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the description need not add detail. It provides no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 starts with 'Make a fungible token per the ERC-20 standard,' naming both the resource (fungible token) and specific standard, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools for ERC-1155 and ERC-721. It also clarifies the output ('Returns the source code of the generated contract'), removing any ambiguity about what 'make' entails.

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 explicitly states the ERC-20 standard, giving clear context for when to use this tool (for ERC-20 token source generation). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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