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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false味的说明 adds meaningful behavioral context: keys are masked, nothing is stored, no key is needed, and the operation is read-only. This goes beyond the annotation field values and helps the agent set expectations about side effects and privacy.

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?

Although lengthy, every sentence earns its place: purpose, scope, usage timing, exclusions, privacy, input format, and output shape. The structure front-loads the core purpose and then layers supporting details, so an agent can quickly extract the key facts.

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 tool is complex enough that the description carries the full responsibility for explaining the return value, but it does so by enumerating the JSON fields. Combined with rich annotationscam和clear sibling routing, nothing essential for an agent to select or invoke this tool correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single `config` parameter, including type, meaning, and max length. The description mostly restates the schema content (pasting endpoint URLs, env lines, code, up to 20,000 characters) rather than adding new semantic insight.

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 purpose: a compatibility report for switching RPC providers, and details exactly what it produces (mapped endpoints, method weights/limits, changes list). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_quote / what_can_i_do / rpc_call, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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?

It says when to use it ('Use it before you swap URLs') and when not to, naming the alternative tools for pricing and calls. This gives explicit, actionable routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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