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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical runtime behavior: it awaits on-chain confirmation up to a timeout, re-reads state when hints are provided, and crucially states that confirmed is always False on timeout and must never be treated as success. It also names the retry_guidance output field, which is valuable operational context.

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?

Though long, the description is densely informative and well-structured: a one-line summary, a grouped behavior explanation with bullets, return-field semantics, and a usage directive. Every section earns its place, and critical caveats are front-loaded with emphasis.

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 9-parameter verification tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, the state-verification variants, timeout semantics, failure handling, and the exact circumstances in which the tool should be invoked. Nothing needed to call it correctly is materially 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It explains tx_signature, commitment, timeout_s, and the semantic role of mint, market, protocol, wallet_address, and marginfi_account via the three state-hint bullets. Only caller_id is left undocumented, which is minor relative to the strong compensation overall.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify any prior transaction signature on demand.' It then elaborates the exact post-trade verification workflow and lists distinct state-hint modes, making the tool's scope unmistakable and clearly distinct from sibling verification/status 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this after signing + broadcasting a transaction yourself' and names concrete caller tools like place_perp_order and lend_deposit. It also clarifies that tools which never broadcast server-side do not require this verification, giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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