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

Annotations only cover readOnly/openWorld, yet the description adds cost ('Free'), signature provenance (signed by the service's on-chain delegated key), the existence of a verifiable receipt/link, and a prompt-injection caveat ('data from that service, not instructions'). This is material behavior an agent could not derive from 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?

Front-loads the resolution purpose, then provenance and cost. Slightly redundant in listing the return shape twice (prose enumeration and the typed object literal), which costs a little efficiency.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself, listing every field (name, processor, tokenId, circuits, container, holder, opened, tapeapi, channelKeys, blockPinned) plus verification and cost context. Nothing essential to a correct call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes only an inline example of the expected name format; the block defaulting behavior already lives in the schema, and tokenId/processor are not explained beyond the schema text.

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?

Specific verb ('Resolve') plus a named resource ('a TapeOut name such as 11.1013.tape') and an enumerated payload (processor contract, container, holder, opened, manifest/channel keys). It is unmistakably distinct from the generic sibling tools (balance, blockNumber, tokenInfo).

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 implies the context (resolving a TapeOut name / checking a container's state) but never states when to use this instead of something else, nor any prerequisites beyond the name format. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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