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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful operational context: it is free, rate-limited to 10 calls per hour, and returns only the quick verdict with no details. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact: three sentences that front-load the free verdict, define the scope, state the rate limit, and route to alternatives. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description still provides enough context: it defines the return as a color verdict, explains the rate limit, and names the more detailed sibling tools. The schema handles parameter semantics, and the annotations handle safety. Nothing essential 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?

The schema covers 100% of the 10 parameters with clear type-conditional descriptions, so the baseline applies. The description's mention of transaction, approval, or signature maps to the type enum but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 outcome—green/orange/red verdict—for the concrete resources: transaction, token approval, or EIP-712 signature. It also distinguishes itself from the presign_check siblings by saying it is the free 'verdict only' variant. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly names the alternatives presign_check and presign_check_explain and the conditions for choosing them: need reason codes and details, or plain-language explanation. It also gives the 10-calls-per-hour limit, which informs when the paid siblings should be used.

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