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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond them: it will name the other network instead of simply refusing, and it will say the address could not be checked for assets without a format in the catalogue. This is exactly the kind of edge-case behavior an agent needs to know.

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 four sentences with no filler: the core action is first, followed by the critical wrong-network caveat and the uncheckable-assets caveat. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, the key failure mode (wrong network destroying funds), the memo requirement, and the edge case where validation is impossible. With an output schema present, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces that memo is only relevant when the asset needs one, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('a recipient address, and its memo when the asset needs one'), and the exact criterion ('against the format the network requires'). This clearly distinguishes it from the swap-related siblings, which are about creating, quoting, or checking swap status.

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 says 'Call this on every address the user gives' and places the call 'before any order exists.' It also explains how to handle the wrong-network case and the unverifiable-catalogue case, giving clear situational guidance.

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