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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the failure mode (non-ERC-20 address returns 422, uncharged), the cost model ($0.01/call via x402 or credits, first 25 free, failed calls free), and why repeats are not free — which explains the idempotentHint=false flag. It stops short of describing the response shape (e.g. whether decimals/supply are strings), a minor gap for a read tool with no output schema.

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 purpose, then usage, then input format, then pricing — a sensible order. Slightly padded by the pricing information appearing twice ('failed calls free' and 'each call is charged, so repeats are not free'), which could be merged into a single clause.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, input formats, error behavior, and cost. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the parameter accepts either a ticker like USDC/WETH or a 0x address, and it supplies a concrete example value. That dual-input semantics is the main ambiguity risk and it is resolved in prose.

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 ('Look up the name, symbol, decimals and total supply of an ERC-20 token contract on Berachain') and names the exact fields returned. The chain scoping plus the sibling pointer to bera_token_balance make it unmistakable versus the 200+ other tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('identify an unknown token address or to format raw amounts') and when not to ('for a holder's balance use bera_token_balance'). The alternative is named with the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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