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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces with 'PRE-FLIGHT check; nothing is submitted.' It adds no contradictory info and provides a specific behavioral guarantee beyond the annotation, though it could mention that it never modifies state beyond what's implied.

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 well-organized with clear sections (purpose, when-to-call, input requirements, output) and uses formatting to emphasize critical input rules. It is longer than the absolute minimum but every sentence adds value; the 'CRITICAL' label highlights a key constraint without fluff.

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 purpose, usage context, all input parameters with critical requirements, and explicitly states the output format ({ gascompute, gasstorage, status }). Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, this is complete and self-sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial context: the constraint that at least one of transfers/sc/sc_rpc must be provided, detailed explanations of sc (DVM-BASIC contract source) and sc_rpc (array of {name, datatype, value}), and the preferred nature of signer. This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool estimates gas (compute + storage) for three distinct operation types (transfers, SC deploys, SC invokes) via DERO.GetGasEstimate. This is specific and differentiates from siblings like estimate_deploy_cost by covering a broader scope, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-call guidance: 'BEFORE any wallet-side transfer/scinvoke... to size fees, OR when explaining deploy costs to a user.' Also suggests preferring dero_docs_search for user-facing explanations, setting clear usage context without ambiguity.

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