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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only reveals that the tool builds a plan and that user confirmation is needed, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., storage, state changes), permission requirements, or rate limits. For a tool that likely involves financial transactions, this is insufficient.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action and resource, followed by a compact list of assets. The second sentence covers amount options and a key behavioral note. No redundant words; every part contributes meaning.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, financial context), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains asset options and the amount/preset interplay, but does not describe the plan's return format, how to execute it, or the role of the required 'owner' parameter. It also omits explanation of 'memo' and 'ethAmount'.

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?

With 83% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds extra value by stating that 'asset=ETH (default)' (not in schema) and clarifying the relationship between 'amount' and 'preset' (ETH only). It also reminds that the tool should never coerce, which is behavioral but relevant for the 'amount'/'preset' choice.

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 the tool builds an 'OPTIONAL tip plan' and enumerates acceptable assets (ETH, BTC, registry symbols, 0x tokens). It provides the action verb 'Build' and resource 'tip plan', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stocktoken_execute_plan' or 'stocktoken_tip_presets', missing an opportunity to clarify its role in the workflow.

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 offers some usage guidance: it hints that the plan is optional and requires user confirmation ('User must confirm. Never coerce.'). It also shows example asset formats. However, it lacks a clear statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., executing a plan or setting presets), and does not specify prerequisites or conditions for use.

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