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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully discloses that this writes to a public ledger and that for Nano the amount is read from-chain ('evidence, not a claim'), which explains a real behavioral consequence. It omits idempotency/duplicate-txid handling, permission requirements, and whether the submission can be retracted.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the currency-specific rule immediately after. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

For a 4-parameter write tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the core mechanic but leaves gaps: what a successful contribution produces, how 'other'-currency contributions are verified, and whether repeated txids are rejected. Adequate but not complete.

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 already 75%, and the description still adds value: it specifies the 64-hex format for the Nano txid and explains the dependency between currency, txid, and amount (the server derives the amount when the chain is checkable). It does not clarify the 'other' currency path or how 'amount' should be formatted when supplied manually.

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+resource: 'Put a transfer to the project address on the public ledger' — an agent can tell this records a contribution/payment, not a claim or a send. However, it never names or contrasts with siblings like project100_contributions (which likely lists them) or project100_verify, so differentiation must be inferred.

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?

Implies when to use it (when you have made or are recording a transfer to the project address) and partially distinguishes the Nano path from the fallback path. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, no prerequisite/auth guidance, and no routing to a sibling tool.

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