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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral signal is 'on-chain', which hints that the read hits a blockchain source, but it says nothing about latency, availability, or what happens when the record does not exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile, which lowers the burden considerably. Still, for a tool whose only input is an opaque on-chain identifier, the description omits both the meaning of serviceId and any usage context, leaving meaningful gaps.

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% for the single required serviceId parameter, and the description does not compensate by explaining what the identifier refers to, where it comes from, or how to obtain it. Only the schema's regex pattern hints at the 32-byte hex format, so the agent gets the shape but not the semantics.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('on-chain Daski service-catalog record'), which is enough to distinguish it from action siblings like daski_buy_outcome or daski_confirm_delivery. It does not, however, contrast itself with the other read siblings (daski_get_provider, daski_get_outcome), so differentiation relies on the resource noun alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as daski_get_provider or daski_list_providers, and no prerequisites or context cues. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the record type.

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