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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether 'transfer' is irreversible, whether any action requires authentication, what happens on insufficient balance, or what side effects occur. It only labels the actions, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose summary followed by a compact, well-organized Args block. Every line adds necessary operational or parameter-level information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 multi-action dispatcher with seven parameters and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it enumerates all actions, their required arguments, and pagination defaults. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context around the transfer side effect and any required permissions.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining every parameter's role, conditional requirements, and constraints. It clarifies that 'did' is required for balance/transactions, 'to_did' and 'amount' for transfer, and it documents pagination defaults. This is exactly the semantic guidance an agent needs beyond the raw schema.

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 clear resource ('MolTrust credits') and enumerates four concrete operations: check balance, view pricing, transfer credits, and view transaction history. It is easily understood and specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from potentially overlapping siblings like moltrust_deposit_history.

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 clear per-action usage guidance: it lists the accepted action values and identifies which arguments are required for each action, including defaults for limit and offset. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the action-driven context is strong enough for an agent to know when to call the tool.

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