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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it never signs, returns broadcast-ready tx, fee accounting, pre-verify if fully authorized, and a cost (~$0.001). Missing details on authentication or state changes, but sufficient.

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 yet efficiently structured, using lists for input/output fields. Slightly lengthy but well-organized, with the purpose stated upfront.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and nested object complexity, the description covers input/output formats, return values (tx, rpc_transaction, fee, pre-verify), and cost. Could detail the return structures more but overall adequate.

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% (generic array items), but the description adds detailed semantics for inputs and outputs, including optional fields, signatures, and covenant structure. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 it assembles a covenant spend transaction, listing input and output specifications. It distinguishes from sibling tools like covenant_broadcast or covenant_compile by focusing on building the tx.

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?

It specifies when to use (to build a covenant spend tx) and notes it never signs, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The guidance on input/output structure is clear.

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