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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers real behavioral detail: the returned fields, that pairing codes are single-use and only consumed by non-reverted txs, and that appending reverts on Safe/fallback handlers for bare ETH transfers. It does not state auth/permission requirements or whether registration is on- or off-chain, leaving some gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the core imperative, and every sentence carries operational weight (return shape, suffix rule, exception, single-use semantics, deadline normalization). Dense em-dash clauses make it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 complex EVM-calldata tool with 5 params at 40% coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the critical mechanics (return shape, suffix placement, exception path, multi-leg handling) well. It is not fully complete given the undocumented parameters and unstated auth model, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for deadline_minutes (relative, normalized to absolute constraints.deadline) and expected.steps, but leaves agent_key and declared_at unexplained. Partial compensation justifies the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Declare an intent') plus the exact workflow ('BEFORE broadcasting') and what it returns ({intent_id, pairing_code}). No sibling tool does anything similar (all are get/list/set/audit tools), so it is trivially distinguishable.

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 clear when-to-use ('Declare an intent BEFORE broadcasting') and an explicit when-not exception for bare ETH transfers to contracts (empty data + value>0) that would revert, plus redirection to expected.steps for multi-leg flows. No named alternative tool is offered, but none exists among siblings.

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