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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the special meaning of the public key for deroproof strings (derived blinder point, not wallet pubkey), the is_proof flag, the value interpretation with signed/wraparound, and the silent attachment of context_note for flagged artifacts. It also mentions the error code on parse failure. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail rate limits or auth (not relevant for a read-only decoder).

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 detailed but well-structured with clear sections (When to call, Input Requirements, Output). It front-loads the core purpose and uses bullet-like formatting. It's longer than the calibration examples but every sentence adds value—no fluff. The only minor issue is the length, but it's justified given the complexity of the tool.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and moderate complexity (bech32 decoding with special cases). The description covers the input format, output structure, edge cases (deroproof public key meaning, value interpretation, flagged artifacts), and even suggests related docs to cite. It's complete for an agent to use correctly without further clarification.

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% (the single parameter proof_string is fully described in the schema). The description adds extra semantics: it specifies the required format (full bech32 string with HRP and separator), case consistency per BIP-0173, and that whitespace is trimmed. It also clarifies the parameter is required. This adds value beyond the schema, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool decodes DERO bech32 strings into constituent parts, listing specific HRPs and the special case for deroproof strings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it should be preferred over chaining bech32 decoders and CBOR libraries, and it mentions the exact wire format match with DEROHE rpc.NewAddress.

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 provides explicit 'When to call' guidance, specifying the use case (user pastes a deroproof/integrated-address string) and explicitly says to PREFER this tool over manual decoding. It also gives critical input requirements and notes when value_interpretation is present, which helps the agent decide when to use it.

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