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

The description discloses that the tool is paid (~$0.0003), which is important cost information. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on whether the tool modifies state or has side effects. The 'derive' verb suggests a read-only operation, but this is implicit.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and includes key details about network options and cost.

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 core function and cost but omits the return value format, error handling, and prerequisites like that the script must be compiled (likely from covenant_compile). For a simple derivation tool, it is adequate but not fully informative.

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 0%, leaving the description to explain parameters. The description mentions that network is 'mainnet' or 'testnet-10' but does not explain the required 'script_hex' parameter format or how to obtain a compiled script. This is insufficient compensation.

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 identifies the tool's action: deriving a covenant P2SH address from a compiled script. It specifies the two supported networks and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like covenant_compile or covenant_build by focusing on address derivation.

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 usage when you have a compiled script and need an address, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like covenant_build or covenant_compile. No direct guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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