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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool does not move funds itself, it performs an external on-chain check, and it can return 422 while the transaction propagates. This softens the alarming destructiveHint=true by clarifying the side effect is a credit, not a fund transfer. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or idempotency on repeat calls.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the sequencing condition, then the side-effect disclaimer, then the failure handling. No sentence is filler and each carries distinct operational value.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained; what remains — when to call, what it does not do, and how to handle the transient 422 — is all supplied. Complete for a two-parameter verification 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%, with both parameters fully described (tx_hash pattern, handshake_id uuid format) in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('verify the USDC Handshake fee', transfer 'checked on-chain and credited') and immediately distinguishes itself from get_handshake as the follow-up step. An agent can tell exactly what this does versus retrieving a handshake.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('after sending the USDC Handshake fee exactly as get_handshake instructed') and names the sibling that sets up the call. It also routes the 422 case ('wait a few seconds and call again'), covering the retry path rather than leaving the agent to guess.

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