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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, open world, etc.), the description adds valuable context: it hashes the payload, records size on-chain, and settles fees in USDC. It also discloses the PRIVATE_KEY requirement. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and preconditions, with no contradiction to the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by core mechanics and a critical requirement. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or unrelated 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 essential behavior, side effects, and prerequisites for a moderately complex publish operation. With an output schema present, return values are handled separately, and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema already fully cover each field (100% coverage), including that the data will be hashed and that maxFee is in USDC. The tool description does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Publish data to a subscriber') and names the exact contract (PayPerByte DataStream). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like byte_buy_data or byte_subscribe by focusing on the publish operation, and adds defining mechanics (hashing payload, recording size, settling fee).

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 makes it evident when to use the tool (to publish data to a subscriber) and mentions a key precondition (requires PRIVATE_KEY). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings.

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