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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it locks amounts into escrow, returns unsigned transactions for the sender to sign and broadcast, includes claim links and codes, and mentions anti-abuse gating. It also explains idempotency behavior. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which align with the description's mutation and locking actions. No contradiction.

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 detailed but well-structured, with a clear opening sentence, then a breakdown of parameters and process. It's a bit long but each sentence adds value. The idempotency explanation is placed at the end, which is appropriate. No fluff.

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 (batch sends, escrow, unsigned transactions, idempotency), the description covers the essential aspects. It mentions the output includes claim links, codes, and transaction indices, and there is an output schema. It doesn't detail the exact output structure, but the output schema likely covers that. It also mentions anti-abuse gating, which is important context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'recipients' as a list of dicts with fields (recipient_handle, amount, message?), mentions 'recipient' alias, 'amount' in base units, and 'message' as optional. It also explains 'token' as mint, 'sender_wallet', and 'idempotency_key' with its retry behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Distribute one token to many X handles in one call (non-custodial).' It specifies the action (distribute), the resource (token to X handles), and the mode (non-custodial). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'send_token_social' by emphasizing batch distribution and the claim escrow mechanism.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: for batch distribution to many handles, with details on the recipients structure and the process. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the batch vs. single distinction is implied. It also mentions anti-abuse gating, which helps the agent understand constraints.

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